>.

2
i ‘= so
sso a cnet eeteebrranes
To omejeoneeree eb osiemeenemanrniet ram
vey x

os

A SS a
rr oh eto on £2

ss > et eee oe

Sanat ge
A Roget
SPEER wa

re
oe
"ey
oa Gey

s

0)
a
Z,
=
)
ra
24
_
26
| a,
a
e
an
3

cou
he

U a

<7AS THE

LIFE AND LETTERS

OF

GEORGE JOHN ROMANES

M.A., LL.D., F.RB.S.
LATE
HONORARY FELLOW OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

WRITTEN AND EDITED BY GIS WIFE

NEW EDITION

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY

1898

All rights reserved

c Wh 22 1913

ational Muses?

LIBERIS NOSTRIS
RECORDATIO

PATRIS DESIDERATISSIMI

MEMORIA JUSTI CUM ‘LAUDIBUS

PREFACE

TO

THE FOURTH EDITION

—eSe——

Tn sending out this Fourth Edition of my husband’s
Life, I cannot but repeat my acknowledgment of the
extreme kindness with which it has been received.
And I think it is also due to his memory to say a
word again in view of various statements that have
been made in America and elsewhere, to the effect
that his mental vigour and powers were impaired
before his death. ‘These statements are absolutely
untrue.

I can best refute them by calling attention to
the obituary notice written by Professor Burdon
Sanderson for the Royal Society. :

In this paper it is said: ‘Up to the end he
(Romanes) preserved not only his mental vigour,
but the keenness of his interest in his scientific
pursuits.’

This, I think, needs no additional comment from
me. It is of course only natural that the record of

viii GHORGE JOHN ROMANES

a changed attitude, of the recovery of alost Faith, of
the discovery that ‘Gradual Evolution is in analogy
with God’s other work,’’ should have provoked some
hostile criticism.

I think, however, that anyone who reads the story
of my husband’s life as it is contained in this book, in
his Poems, and in the ‘ Thoughts on Religion’ will, if
he reads with an unprejudiced mind, see that the
search for Truth was lifelong, however much or
however little he may agree with the conclusions at
which my husband finally arrived.

Ihave to thank Mr. Leonard Huxley for kindly
sending me letters written to his distinguished father, —
and which were fortunately in time to be inserted in
the Third Edition.

I must also thank Mr. Burdon Sanderson for a
very interesting letter, which Messrs. Longmans have
kindly allowed me to publish in this edition.

Jehy Jes.

13 CornwaLt TERRACE, REGENT’s Park, N.W.:
October, 1897.

1 See Thoughts on Religion, p. 174, seventh edition.

PREFACE

—_o————

In writing my husband’s life I have tried, so far as
it was possible, to let him, especially in matters
scientific, speak for himself.

For the purpose of his biographer it is unfortunate
that my husband lived in almost daily intercourse
for parts of many years with more than one of his
most intimate friends. Hence there are no letters
to several people with whom he was in the habit
of discussing scientific, philosophic, and theological
questions.

The letters relating to his work will, I hope,
interest any one who cares for biological science.
Whatever may be the exact place which shall be
assigned to him, by those who come after, in the
great army of workers for Science, this much may
be said: that no one ever served in the cause of
Science with more passionate and whole-hearted
devotion, more entire disinterestedness—

All for Love, and nothing for Reward.

I have to acknowledge the kindness of many who
have put letters at my disposal. I cannot sufficiently
a

x GEORGE JOHN ROMANES

express my thanks to Mr. Francis Darwin for
generously allowing me to print portions of the
correspondence which for seven or eight years was
one of the chief pleasures and privileges of my
husband’s life. I must also thank my brother and
sister-in-law, the Dean of Christ Church, Professor
Poulton, Professor Schafer, Professor Le Conte,
Mr. Thiselton-Dyer, and others for like permission.

And I must express my most sincere gratitude
to the Rev. P. N. Waggett, to Professor C. Lloyd
Morgan, and to my cousin Mrs. St. George Reid
(formerly of Newnham College, Cambridge), for their ©
constant help and advice. |

To Mrs. Reid I owe more than I can well express.
Her scientific knowledge and ability have been simply
invaluable, and have been used with ever-ready and
ungrudging generosity and kindness.

There are other aspects of my husband’s life
which are interesting, but again I think he has told
his own story, and it is needless for me here to speak
of what, to some extent, he has laid bare—of mental
perplexity and of steadfast endurance and loyalty to
Truth. It may be that others, wandering in the
twilight of this ‘dimly lighted world,’ may be stimu-
lated and encouraged and helped to go on in patience
until on them also dawns that Light. If this be so
it will not be altogether in vain that he bore long
years of very real and very heavy sorrow.

BE. R.

OxForpD: 1895.

CONTENTS

=o
CHAPTER PAGE
I. BOYHOOD—YOUTH—EARLY MANHOOD, 1848-1878 . 5 1
Ii. LONDON, 1879-1890 . : e ° ° ° ° . 6) SE
Ill. LONDON—GEANIES, 1881-1890 . ° ° ° ° 142
IY. OXFORD, 1890-1894 ° ° ° ° 2 ° e ° . 260

INDEX ° e e e 8 a e @ @ ° ° ° 389

ILLUSTRATIONS

Portrait of Mr. Romanes ., ‘ , ‘ ° > Frontispiece
GeaniEs, Ross-SHIRE . 5 , ° ° ° "To face p. 152

94 Sr. ALDATE’S 5 5 5 ° ° > ® 3 3 270

GEORGE JOHN ROMANES

_—— oe

CHAPTER I
BOYHOOD—YOUTH—EHARLY MANHOOD

BOYHOOD. 1848-1867

Grorce JoHN Romanes was born at Kingston,
Canada, on May 20, 1848, the third son of the
Rey. George Romanes, D.D., then Professor of Greek
in the University of that place.

The Professor had come out to Canada some years
previously, and, after a short experience of work in
country parishes, had settled down to teach Greek to
the alumni of the little University.

Dr. Romanes was descended from an old Scottish
family settled since 1586 in Berwickshire: he had
been educated at the High School and University of
Edinburgh, and was an excellent classic and learned
theologian, with views of a strictly ‘ Moderate’ type.
From him his distinguished son inherited the
sweetness of temper and calmness of manner which
characterised George John Romanes through life, and
which earned for him amongst his friends the playful
sobriquet of ‘ The Philosopher.’

Dr. Romanes married, after his arrival in Canada,

B

9 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES “yi

Miss Isabella Gair Smith, daughter of the Rev. Robert
Smith, for many years parish minister of Cromarty.
Mrs. Romanes was connected with several old High-
land families, and was athorough Highlander. Hand-
some, vivacious, unconventional, and clever, she was
in all respects a great contrast to her husband, who,
as years went on, seems to have lived mainly the life
of a student, and to have left the care of mundane
things to his wife. Three sons and two daughters
were born. Of these, only two, the eldest son and
youngest daughter, now survive.

In 1848, the inheritance of a considerable fortune
relieved Dr. Romanes from any necessity to continue
the duties of his chair, and the family returned home, -
wandering about for a few years and finally settling
in 18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park. There was a
good deal of continental travel during these first years
after their return, andas he grew into boyhood George
Romanes spent several months at various times in
Heidelberg and other German towns, and the family
performed a journey from Nice to Florence in a
delightful and now bygone fashion, travelling with a
vetturino.

Probably the beauty of the scenery, the fascination
of travel, and the charm of the beautiful surroundings
exercised an unconscious influence over the boy, and
did something to rouse the poetic sense which was
to be so great an elementin his life. Otherwise there
seems to have been little or no sense of pleasure in the
art treasures or the historic associations of Italy, and
at no time of his life did he ever care for pictures to
anything like the same extent as for poetry or music.

Afterthe family settled in London, George Romanes
was sent to a preparatory school near his own home.
Txvo of his schoolfellows became in after life intimate

1860 KARLY LIFE 3

friends. These were Francis Paget, the present Dean
of Christ Church, and his brother, Henry Luke Paget,
now Vicar of St. Pancras, London.

An attack of measles put a stop once and for all
to his preparatory school career, and the idea of a
public school was never entertained.

He was educated in a desultory and aimless fashion
at home, and was regarded by his family as a shock-
ing dunce. Parts of two years were spent in Heidel-
berg, and here he picked up some German, and had a
few lessons on the violin, and saw as he grew up
something of student life in Germany. Music was
always a perfect passion with George Romanes, and if
a little wholesome discipline had been exercised, the
boy might have become a very good musician.

Heidelberg and the days at Heidelberg represented
to the younger Romanes the ‘ golden age.’

They lived in an old house outside the town, sur-
rounded by woods, and here the children, George and
his younger sister, roamed about to their hearts’ con-
tent, making collections and keeping pets, hke the
born naturalists they were. Shockingly idle children
but marvellously happy ones, and in the peculiar ‘let
alone’ system of their household, they grew up, neither
of them remembering any reproof, far less any punish-
ment, nor any attempt to make them learn lessons
or carry on studies for which they were not inclined.
A long interval of years separated the brothers, now
only two in number,’ and the younger brother and
sister were looked on and treated as children long
after they had emerged from childhood.

The father and mother seem to have attended
Presbyterian and Anglican churches with entire im-

1 Robert, the second son, died in-childhood.
BD

4 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1867—

partiality, but the younger members of the family pre-
ferred the English church, and were confirmed in it.
Religion was a potent influence with the boy in quite
early years, and there grew up in him a purpose of
taking Holy Orders, a purpose which met with no en-
couragement from either of his parents.

If of intellectual achievement he gave as yet no
promise, at least there were the signs of a singularly
pure and unselfish nature which seemed to grow
and develope with the growing years. All through
his life he was peculiarly tender, gentle, and unselfish,
and his younger sister describes a little scene of how,
while a children’s party was going on downstairs,
George found her upstairs alone and miserable, suffer-_
ing from some odd childish misery of nerves, unable
to go down, and yet hating to be alone; how he at
once soothed and petted her, sat by her the whole
evening, telling her stories and successfully driving
away her unhappiness. The most characteristic bit
appears attheend. ‘This sort of unselfish conduct was
so usual, that his little sister really forgot to thank
him, nor did it occur to her till long after that there was
anything unusual in his willingness to sacrifice a
whole evening’s amusement to what most boys would
have regarded as mere fancifulness, only deserving a
due amount of severe teasing.

During these years the Romanes family spent
their summers at Dunskaith, on the shores of the
Cromarty Firth. Here George Romanes had his first
lessons in sport at the hands of Dr. Brydon, the well-
known survivor of the fatal retreat from Cabul, 1842."

1 Dr. Brydon resided on a small but beautiful property overlooking
the Cromarty Firth, and, after his death, Dr. Romanes rented the place
from its owners, who were distant cousins of Mrs. Romanes, in order that
‘George might have some shooting.’

1870 CAMBRIDGE 5

He soon became an ardent sportsman and excellent
shot, and rarely until his fatal illness began did he
ever fail to keep the Twelfth of August and the First
of September in the proper way.

When George Romanes was about seventeen, he
was sent to a tutor to read in preparation for the
University, his mother having suddenly awakened to
the fact that he was nearly grown up and not at all
ready for college. One of his fellow pupils was Mr.
Charles Edmund Lister, brother of the present owner
of Shibden Hall, Halifax. With Mr. Lister he formed
a friendship destined to be only broken by Mr. Lister’s
premature death in 1889. This friendship had impor-
tant results for George Romanes. He had been in-
tended for Oxford, and his name had been entered at
Brasenose College, but Mr. Lister was to go to Cam-
bridge, and he easily persuaded his friend to follow
him.

In October 1867 George John Romanes entered
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

CAMBRIDGE. 1867-1873

Most men feel that their University life is one of
the most marked phases of their career. Even
those who come up from a public school, with «ll the
prestige and with all the friendships, the sense of
fellowship, the hundred and one influences, the cus-
toms of a great school ‘ lying thick’ upon them, realise
more and more, as time goes on, how great a part
Oxford or Cambridge plays in their lives; how it is
in their University life they make their intellectual
choice, and receive the bias which, for good or for evil,
will influence their whole life.

6 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1870—

And to this raw boy, fresh from a secluded and
somewhat narrow atmosphere, plunged for the first
time into a great society, brought for the first time
under some of the influences of the then ‘ Zeitgeist,’
into contact with some of the leaders of thought,
entrance into the University was the beginning of an
entirely new life.

He entered Cambridge, half-educated, utterly un-
trained, with no knowledge of men or of books. He
left it, to all intents and purposes, a trained worker
and earnest thinker, with his life work begun—that
work which was an unwearied search after truth, a
work characterised by an ever-increasing reverence
for goodness, and, as years went on, by a disregard
for applause or for reward. His Cambridge life was
happy ; he made several friends, chief of whom was
Mr. Proby Cautley, the present rector of Quainton
near Aylesbury.

He enjoyed boating, and once narrowly escaped
drowning in the Cam.

At first George Romanes fell completely under
Evangelical influences, at that time practicilly the
most potent religious force in Cambridge. He was a
regular communicant, and it is touching to look at
the little Bible he used while at Cambridge, worn,
and marked, and pencilled, with references to sermons
which had evidently caught the boy’s attention. He
used to attend meetings for Greek Testament study,
and enjoyed hearing the distinguished preachers who
visited the University.

But of the zntellectual influences in the religious
world of the University he knew nothing. F. D.
Maurice was still in Cambridge, but he seems to have
repelled rather than to have attracted George Ro-

1873 CAMBRIDGE 7

manes, nor did he ever come under the influence of
Westcott, or of Lightfoot, or of Hort.

And, when the intellectual struggles began, he
seems in early years to have owed very little to any
Christian writer, Bishop Butler alone excepted.

His summers were spent in Ross-shire, and there
is no doubt these months were of great use to him.
He was perfectly unharassed so far as pecuniary cares
or family ambition were concerned, and he had abun-
dant time to think. Years afterwards, Mr. Darwin
said to him: ‘ Above all, Romanes, cultivate the habit
of meditation,’ and Mr. Romanes always quoted this
as a most valuable bit of advice. His intellectual
development was rapid in these Cambridge years, and
it is not improbable that his slowly growing mind had
not been ill served by being allowed to mature in
absolute freedom, although he himself bitterly re-
sretted and, through his whole life, deplored the lack
of early training, and of mental discipline.

Through these early Cambridge years he still
cherished the idea of Holy Orders, and with his friend,
Mr. Cautley, he had many talks about the career they
both intended to choose. They spent a part of one long
vacation together, and occupied themselves in reading
theology—such books as ‘Pearson on the Creed,’
Hooker’s ‘ Ecclesiastical Polity,’ Bishop Butler’s
‘Analogy,’ and in writing sermons. Some of Mr.
Romanes’ are still extant, and are curious bits of
boyish composition—crude, unformed in style, and
yet full of thought, and showing a remarkable know-
ledge of the Bible.

He seems to have been, for the rest, a bright, good-
tempered, popular lad, always much chaffed for absent-
minded mistakes, for his long legs, for his peculiar
name; and he certainly gave no one the faintest idea

8 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1870=

of any particular ability, any likelihood of future dis-
tinction.’ Some slight chance, as it seemed, turned
his attention to natural science; one or two friends
were reading for the Natural Science Tripos, and
George Romanes ceased to read mathematics and
began to work at natural science, competing for and
winning a scholarship in that subject.

Highteen months only remained for him to work
for his Tripos, and it is not surprising that he only
obtained a Second Class. In the Tripos of 1870, in
the same list among the First-Class men, Mr. Francis
Darwin’s name appears.

Mr. Romanes had gone but a little distance along
the road on which he was destined to travel very fay.
He had up to this time read none of Mr. Darwin’s
books, and to a question on Natural Selection which
occurred in the Tripos papers he could give no answer.

By this time he had abandoned the idea of Holy
Orders, perhaps on account of the opposition at
home, perhaps because of the first beginnings of the
intellectual struggles of doubt and of bewilderment.
He began to study medicine, and made a lifelong
friendship with Dr. Latham, the well-known Cam-
bridge physician, of whose kindness Mr. Romanes
often spoke, and to whom he dedicated his first book,
which was the Burney Prize for 1873. But he also
began to study physiology under the direction of Dr.
Michael Foster, the present Professor of Physiology at
Cambridge, to whom she owes her famous medical
school, at that time in its very early beginnings.

Science entirely fascinated him; his first plunge

1 Mr. Cautley writes: ‘I have never seen Romanes, under the greatest
provocation, out of temper. Always gentle, always kind, never over-
bearing .. . never forgetful of friends.’

1873 BURNEY PRIZE s)

into real scientific work opened to him a new life, gave
him the first sense of power and of capacity. Now he
read Mr. Darwin’s books, and it is impossible to over-
rate the extraordinary effect they had on the young
man’s mind. Something of the feeling which Keats
describes in the sonnet ‘On Looking into Chapman’s
Homer’ seems to have been his:

‘Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken 3
Or like stout Cortez when, with eagle eyes,
He stared at the Pacific—and all his men
Looked at each other with a wild surmise
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.’

About the spring of 1872 Mr. Romanes began to
show signs of ill-health. He was harassed by faint-
ness and incessant lassitude, but struggled on, going
up to Scotland in the summer and beginning to
shoot, under the belief that all he wanted was hard
exercise. At last he broke down and was declared to
be suffering from a bad attack of typhoid fever. He
had a very hard struggle for life, and owed a great
deal to Dr. Latham, who from Cambridge kept up a
constant telegraphic communication with the Ross-
shire doctors. It was a long and weary convales-
cence, beguiled in part by writing an essay on
‘Christian Prayer and General Laws,’ the subject
assigned for the Burney Prize Essay of 1873.

Much of this essay was dictated to one or other of
his sisters, and it is a curious fact that his first book
and his last should have been on theological subjects.
Both were written when he was struggling with great
bodily weakness, and in these months of early man-
hood he showed the same almost pathetic desire to
work, the same activity of thought which he displayed

10 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1873

more than twenty years later in the last days of his
life.

The essay was successful, and its author was more
than once claimed as a champion of faith on the
strength of it.

It isa very hard bit of reading, and of course has
to some extent the drawback of a prize essay, a work
written not simply to convince the public, but to
impress examiners. It is full of knowledge and of
intellectual agility, but is perhaps needlessly difficult
in style. His success was absolutely unexpected by
his family, and made him very happy, as the following
letters show, written in the first glow of success.

To Mrs. Romanes.

18 Cornwall Terrace.

My dearest Mother,—Your letter of surprise and
rejoicing has been to me one of the best parts of the
result. All the letters of congratulation which are
now coming in mention you: ‘ How delighted your
mother will be,’ &c.; and it is a great thing for me
to find that you are so. Without appreciative sym-
pathy success soon palls; but the two combined go
to make up the best happiness.

I went to Cambridge yesterday to get the
manuscript, and as there happened to be a congrega-
tion in the afternoon, I also took my degree. I saw
all my friends, who were overflowing with delight.
Indeed, I never before realised how great the compe-
tition is, for I never had an opportunity of knowing
how the successful man is lionised. The Caius dons
especially are up in the air about it, as this is the first

1873 BURNEY PRIZE 11

time in the history of the college that one of its
members has got the Burney; so that, as Ferrers
writes to me, ‘ when the same year produces a Senior
Wrangler and a Burney Prizeman, the college may
be said to be looking up.’ I was invited to breakfast
with the Professor of Divinity (who is the principal
adjudicator), and I found him very pleasant indeed.
Afterwards I went to the Vice-Chancellor, from whom
I got the well-remembered ‘pages’ (but now with
Prize I. written across them) ; and lastly, to the third
adjudicator, the master of Christ’s. They all said
more in praise of the essay than I would care to
repeat, but, to tell you the simple truth, I was perfectly
astonished. For example, ‘In the history of the
Burney Prize there have only been two equals and
no superiors.’

The Vice-Chancellor told me that there was another
essay well deserving of a prize which was written
by a man of whom I dare say you will remember I
said I was most afraid, viz., Mr. Cunningham.' I knew
him very well when we were undergraduates, and
three years ago he obtained the Trinity Scholarship
in Philosophy, open to all competitors, and ended
up eighteen months ago by graduating as Senior of
the Moral Science Tripos. Itis a great satisfaction
to me that the man who was universally admitted to
be the best of the Cambridge metaphysicians should
have written, and that, notwithstanding, the decision
should have been given unanimously in my favour.

1 The Rev. W. Cunningham, D.D., Fellow and Lecturer of Trinity
CoJlege, Cambridge, and Hon, Fellow of Caius.

12 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES is7as

To James Romanes, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace : April 24.

My dearest James,—I am sure you will be as much
pleased with the result of my labours as I am myself.
I remember so well our speculating upon the probable
chances of success, and how low we set them down.
Had I known for certain that Cunningham was going
to compete, I think I should have given up altogether.
His essay does seem to have been extraordinarily
good, and yet he cannot get a second prize, because
the foundation requires that every penny of the
interest shall go to the first man. As this seems
rather hard lines for Cunningham, I have to-day
written to the Divinity Professor offering to share
the prize money, on condition that the University
recognise Cunningham as a prizeman.

The extraordinary thing about the whole affair is,
not so much the award, as the opinion which the
adjudicators entertain of the work. I do not know how
it is that, stranded on a sandbank and in a half dead-
and-alive state, without thinking I was doing any-
thing unusual, I should have written the prize essay.
But I don’t care how it is so long as it is so, as
writes, ‘ You certainly have achieved a great success,
handicapped as you were in so many ways.’ This,
of course, relates to the award; but, as I said before,
what surprised me most is that I should not only be
first, but such a good first. The praise given by each
of the adjudicators separately, in as strong terms as
it is possible in donnish phraseology to convey it, was

1875 FIRST MEETING WITH DARWIN 13

very gratifying to me, especially as pronounced in the
studiously dignified manner of the Vice-Chancellor.
I hope soon to see you and tell you more about
the whole thing; for one of the best parts of it is,
that ‘if one member be honoured, all the members
rejoice with it.’
Ever your loving Brother,
Gro. J. RoMANgEs.

During his convalescence Mr. Romanes finally
abandoned the idea of a profession and resolved to
devote himself to scientific research.

It was about this time that a letter of his in
‘Nature’ (see ‘Nature,’ vol. viii. p. 101) attracted
Mr. Darwin’s attention, and caused him to send a
friendly little note to the youthful writer.

Probably Mr. Darwin had little idea of the effect
his letter produced on its recipient, who was then
recovering from his long illness. That Darwin should
actually write to him seemed too good to believe. It
was a great encouragement to go on with scientific
- work.

“Up to 1873 or 1874 Mr. Romanes had been work-
ing, when at Cambridge, in Dr. Michael Foster’s
laboratory, and was a member of that band who
formed the nucleus of what was destined to be the
famous physiological school of Cambridge. Side by
side with Mr. Romanes were working Mr. Gaskell, Mr.
Dew Smith, and others now well known for their work
and achievements.

In some ways Mr. Romanes suffered from not
remaining at Cambridge and becoming a permanent
member of the band.

It is impossible not to feel that had he stayed on

14 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1873—

at the University he would have devoted himself
more and more to strictly experimental work and less
to what may be called philosophical natural history.
Some will regard his removal as a misfortune, and
others as a happy accident, but the might-have-beens
of lfe are never very profitable subjects for specula-
tion.

In order to be with his now widowed mother, he
returned to London, and made his home with her and
his sisters. They spent their summers at Dunskaith,
and Mr. Romanes embarked on researches on the
nervous system of the Medusee. He began also to work
in the physiological laboratory of University College
under Dr. Sharpey and Dr. Burdon Sanderson. Both
he regarded as masters and friends, and perhaps,
next to Mr. Darwin, Dr. Sanderson was the scientific
friend George Romanes most valued and loved,
although it is impossible to overrate what he owed
to Cambridge, and to those early longings for bio-
logical study which were inspired by Dr. Foster.

As has been said, a letter in ‘Nature’ attracted
Mr. Darwin's notice, and somewhere about 1874 he
invited Mr. Romanes to call on him.

From that time began an unbroken friendship,
marked on one side by absolute worship, reverence,
and affection, on the other by an almost fatherly kind-
ness and a wonderful interest in the younger man’s
work and in his career. That first meeting was a
real epoch in Mr. Romanes’ life. Mr. Darwin met
him, as he often used to tell, with outstretched hands,
a bright smile, and a‘ How glad I am that you are so
young!’

Perhaps no hero-worship was ever more unselfish,
more utterly loyal, or more fully rewarded. As time
went on, and intimacy increased, and restraint wore

/

1875 EARLY SCIENTIFIC WORK 15

off, Mr. Romanes found that the great master was as
much to be admired for his personal character as for
his wonderful gifts, and to the youth who never, in the
darkest days of utter scepticism, parted with the love
for goodness, for beauty of character, this was an over-
whelming joy.

In a poem written about 1884 Mr. Romanes has
expressed something of what he felt for Mr. Darwin,
and in this he has poured out his ‘ hero-worship’ in
terms which were to him the expressions of simple
truth.

It is interesting to look over the long series of
letters from 1874 to 1882 and notice how the formal
‘Dear Mr. Romanes’ drops into the familiar ‘ Dear
Romanes,’ and the letters become more and more
affectionate, intimate, personal.

About this time also Mr. Romanes made many
other scientific friends, Professor Schafer, Professor
Cossar Hwart, Mr. Francis Darwin, Dr. Pye Smith,
Professor R. Lankester, Professor Clifford, Dr. Lauder
Brunton, and many more; and as his work became
known it is pleasant to see with what kindness of
welcome the new recruit was welcomed to the scien-
tific army by such men as Professor Huxley, Sir John
Lubbock, Sir Joseph Hooker, Mr. Busk, My. F. Galton,
and Mr. Spottiswoode, then President of the Royal
society.

Just at that time there was a set of rising young
biologists who all seemed destined to do good work,
and it is melancholy to look back and to see ‘ how of
that not too numerous band a number have been
taken from us in the prime of life, Garrod, Frank
Balfour, Moseley, H. Carpenter, Milnes Marshall,
Romanes.’ !

1. Prof, E, R. Lankester in Natwre, May 1894.

16 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1874--:

At Dunskaith a little laboratory was fitted up in
an adjoining cottage, and here during the summer
Mr. Romanes worked constantly for some years, diver-
sifying his labours by shooting. It was in his country
home also that he began those series of observations
on animals which he worked up into the ‘ Animal
Intelligence’ of the International Scientific Series,
perhaps the most popular of his books. ‘The terrier
Mathal was his special companion, and he observed
various traits of her intelligence which are recorded
in ‘ Mental Evolution in Animals,’ pp. 156, 157, 158.
It was also at Dunskaith that he began his first
attempts at verse making, but for some years these
did not come to much.

His scientific work at Dunskaith led to a paper
communicated to the Royal Society in 1875, and
entitled ‘ Preliminary Observations on the Locomotor
System of Medusz.’

This paper the Royal Society honoured by making
it the Croonian Lecture, an honour awarded to the
best biological paper of each year.

And he also communicated a paper to the Royal
Society entitled, ‘The Influence of Injury on the
Excitability of Motor Nerves.’ Of this paper Pro-
fessor Burdon Sanderson says that the observations
were made with great care, and that the new facts
recorded have been fully confirmed by later observers.
This work was done at Cambridge.

‘Mr. Romanes had worked for two years, or rather
two summers, very constantly and very strenuously
on the Meduse. He set himself to try to discover
whether or not the rudiments of a nervous system
existed in these creatures. Agassiz had maintained it
did, others considered his deductions premature, and
Huxley, in his ‘ Classification of Animals,’ summed

1875 EXPERIMENTS ON MEDUSA 17

up the much-debated question by saying that
‘no nervous system had yet been discovered in
Meduse.’

Microscopically, it had already been shown that
in some forms of Meduse there are present certain
fine fibres running along the margin of the swimming
bell, from their appearance said to be nerves, but
in no case had it been shown that they functioned
as such. Thus it was tosolve this question, whether.
or not a nervous system, known to be present in all
animals higher in the zoological scale, makes its
first appearance in the Medusz, that Mr. Romanes
entered upon a long series of physiological experi-.
ments, first on the group of small ‘naked-eyed’
Meduse, and then on the larger ‘ covered-eyed’ form,
the latter division containing the common jelly-fish.
These names, ‘naked-eyed’ and ‘covered-eyed,’ are
given to the two groups on account of a difference in
their sense organs, which are situated on the margin
of the umbrella or swimming bell, and are protected
by a hood of gelatinous matter in the ‘ covered-eyed ’
forms, so called in contradistinction to the ‘naked-
eyed’ group, where the hood is absent.

Romanes first carefully observed the movements
of the Medusez, which, it will be remembered, are
effected by the dilatation and contraction of the
entire swimming bell, and he found that if, in the
‘naked-eyed’ group, the extreme margin of this
swimming bell be excised, immediate, total, and per-
manent paralysis of the whole organ took placé. This
result was obtained with every species of this group
which he examined; he therefore concluded that in
the margin of all these forms there is situated a
localised system of centres of spontaneity, having
for one of its functions the origination of impulses to

C

18 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1874—

which the contraction of the swimming bell is, under
ordinary circumstances, exclusively due. This deduc-
tion was confirmed by the behaviour of the severed
thread-like portion of the margin, which continued
its rhythmical contractions quite unimpaired by its
severance from the main organism, the latter remain-
ing perfectly motionless. In the ‘covered-eyed’
forms Romanes found that excision of the margin
of the umbrella, or rather excision of the sense organs
or marginal bodies, produced paralysis ; in this case,
the paralysis was of a temporary character, as in the
great majority of cases contractions were resumed
after a variable period. From this series of experi-
ments he was led to believe that in the ‘ covered-
eyed’ Meduse the margin is the principal, but not
the exclusive, seat of spontaneity, there being other
locomotor centres scattered throughout the general
contractile tissue of the swimming bell.

Having demonstrated the existence of a central
nervous system capable of originating impulses,
Romanes had yet to prove the identity of this nervous
tissue of the Medusz with that of nervous tissues in
eeneral: therefore, he next proceeded to test whether
it was also capable of responding to external stimu-
lation by light, heat, electricity, &c.

As regards appreciation of light, he was able to
prove conclusively for at least two species of the
‘naked-eyed’ forms that as long as their marginal
bodies remained intact they would always respond to
luminous stimulation, and would crowd along a beam
of light cast through a darkened bell jar in which
they were swimming; if their marginal bodies were
removed, they remained indifferent to light. With
regard to the ‘covered-eyed’ forms, he obtained
sufficient evidence to induce him to believe they

1875 EXPERIMENTS ON MEDUSA 19

possessed a visual sense localised in their marginal
sense organs.

The effects of electrical stimulation agreed in all
respects with those produced on the excitable tissues
of other animals. He next experimentally investi-
gated in the jelly-fish the paths along which the
neryous impulses must pass in their passage from the
locomotor centres, where they originate, to the general
contractile tissues of the animal.

The results of these experiments led him to infer
the existence of a very fine plexus of nerve fibres, in
which the constituent threads cross and re-cross one
another without actuallycoalescing. This conclusion,
which he arrived at from purely experimental grounds,
was some years afterwards confirmed by minute his-
tological research.

Finally, the effect of various poisons, chloroform,
alcohol, &c., was tried, and the striking resemblance
of their action on the nervous system of the Meduse
with that which they exert on that of higher animals
supports the belief that nerve tissue when it first
appears in the scene of life has the same fundamental
properties as it has in higher animals.

This piece of work was important, as the facts
threw light, as Professor Sanderson has said, on ele-
mentary questions of physiology relating to excita-
bility and conduction, and it was a characteristic of
Mr. Romanes that in all his work, of whatever kind,
he was always searching for principles. The minutest
detail never escaped his attention if it appeared at all
likely in any way to throw light on some biological
or psychological problem. Only a trained scientific
worker can appreciate the amount of labour these
Royal Society papers represented. In 1875 he gave

o 2

20 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875

a Friday evening lecture at the Royal Institution on
his work on Medusz.

He was also at this time working on the subject
of ‘Pangenesis,’’ and a series of letters to Mr.
Darwin and to Professor Schafer may interest some
readers.

1 The following extract from ‘An Examination of Weissmannism,’
‘pp. 2, 3, will possibly explain the theory of Pangenesis, which assumes :

1. That all the component cells of a multicellular organism throw off
inconceivably minute germs, or ‘gemmules,’ which are then dispersed
throughout the whole system.

2. That these gemmules, when so dispersed and supplied with proper
nutriment, multiply by self-division, and, under suitable conditions, are
capable of developing into physiological cells like those from which they
were originally and severally derived.

3. That, while still in this gemmular condition, these cell-seeds have
for one another a mutual affinity, which leads to their being collected
from all parts of the system by the reproductive glands of the organism ;
and that, when so collected, they go to constitute the essential material of
the sexual elements—ova and spermatozoa being thus aggregated packets
of gemmules, which have emanated from all the cells of all the tissues of
the organism.

4, That the development of a new organism out of the fusion of two
such packets of gemmules is due to a summation of all the developments
of some of the gemmules which these two packets contain.

5. That a large proportional number of the gemmules in each packet,
however, fail to develop, and are then transmitted in a dormant state to
future generations, in any of which they may be developed subsequently,
thus giving rise to the phenomena of reversion or atavism.

6. That in all cases the development of gemmules into the form of
their parent cells depends on their suitable union with other partially
developed gemmules which precede them in the regular course of
growth.

7. That gemmules are thrown off by all physiological cells, not only
during the adult state of the organism, but during all stages of its develop-
ment. Or, in other words, that the production of these cell-seeds depends
upon the adult condition of parent cells, not upon that of the multi-
cellular organism as a whole.

1875 PANGENESIS 21

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.:
January 14, 1875.

Dear Mr. Darwin,—I should very much like to
see the papers to which you allude. A priori one
would have thought the bisecting plan the more
hopeful, but if the other has yielded positive results,
in the case of an eye and tubers, I think it would be
worth while to try the effect of transplanting various
kinds of pips into the pulps of kindred varieties of
fruit ; for the homological relations in this case would
be pretty much the same as in the other, with the
exception of the bud being an impregnated one. If
positive results ensued, however, this last-mentioned
fact would be all the better for ‘ Pangenesis.’

You have doubtless observed the very remarkable
case given in the ‘ Gardener’s Chronicle’ for January 2
—I mean the vine in which the scion appears to have
notably affected the stock. Altogether vines seem
very promising; and as their buds admit of being
planted in the ground, it would be much more easy
to try the bisecting plan in their case than in others,
where one half-bud, besides requiring to be fitted to
the other half, has also to have its shield fitted into
the bark. All one’s energies might then be expended
in coaxing adhesion, and if once this were obtained,
I think there would here be the best chance of
obtaining a hybrid; for then all, or nearly all, the
cells of the future branch would be in the state
of gemmules. I am very sangnuie about the buds
growing under these circumstances, for the vigour

22 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875~

with which bisected seeds germinate is perfectly
astonishing.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Gro. J. Romans.

P.S.—I have been to see Dr. Hooker, and found
his kindness and courtesy quite what you led me to
expect. Such men are rare.

April 21, 1875.

In returning you ’s papers, I should like to say
that the one on ‘ Inheritance’ appears to me quite de-
stitute of intelligible meaning. It is a jumble of the
same confused ideas upon heredity about which I
complained when you were at this house. How in
the world can ‘force’ act without any material on
which to act? Yet, unless we assume that it can,
the whole discussion is either meaningless, or else
assumes the truth of some such theory as ‘ Pangene-
sis. In other words, as it must be ‘unthinkable’
that force should act independently of matter, the
doctrine of its persistence can only be made to bear
upon the question of heredity, by supposing that
there is a material connection between corporeal and
germinal cells—z.e. by granting the existence of
force-carriers, call them gemmules, or physiological
units, or what we please.

Lawson Tait says (p. 60)—‘ The process of growth
of the ovum after impregnation can be followed only
after the assumption either expressed or unconsciously
accepted of such a hypothesis as is contained in Mr.
Darwin’s “ Pangenesis;’”’’ and it is interesting, as |
showing the truth of the remark, to compare, for ex-

1876 PANGENESIS 23

ample, p. 29 of the other pamphlet—for, of course,
‘Pangenesis’ assumes the truth of the persistence of
force as the prime condition of its possibility. If
ever I have occasion to prepare a paper about
heredity, I think it would be worth while to point
out the absurdity of thinking that we explain any-
thing by vague allusions to the most ultimate
generalisation of science. We might just as well say
that Canadian institutions resemble British ones
because force is persistent. This doubtless is the
ultimate reason, but our explanation would be scien-
tifically valueless if we neglected to observe that the
Canadian colony was founded by British individuals.

The leaf from ‘ Nature’ arrived last night. I had
previously intended to try mangold-wurzel, as I hear
it has well-marked varieties. The elles. there-
fore, will be valuable to me.

Before closing, I should like to take this oppor-
tunity of thanking you again for the very pleasant
time I spent at Down. The place was one which I
had long wished to see, and now that I have seen it,
I am sure it will ever remain one of the most agree-
able and interesting of memory’s pictures.

With kind regards to Mrs. Darwin, I remain, very
sincerely and most respectfully yours,

Gro. J. Romanzs.

To Professor E. Schafer.
Dunskaith, Ross-shire.
My dear Schafer,—I am glad to hear that your
rest has been beneficial, and also about all the other
news you give.

24 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875=

I should like to have your opinion about the
meaning of the following facts.

In Sarsia gentle irritation of a tentacle or an eye-
speck causes the polypite to respond, but not the
bell (stronger irritation, of course, causes both to
respond) ; this seems to show that there are nervous
connections between the eye-specks and the polypite.
By introducing cuts between former and latter, these
connections may be destroyed—the tolerance of the
tissue to such sections being variable in different

cases, but never being anything remarkable. So far,
then, the matter seems favourable to the nerve-plexus
theory.

In another disc-shaped species of naked-eyed
Meduse with a long polypite, which I have called
Tiaropsis indicans, from its habit of applying this
long polypite to any part of the bell which is being
injured, the localising function of the polypite is de-
stroyed as regards any area of bell-tissue between
which and the polypite a circumferential section has
been introduced. In other words, the connections
between the bell and the polypite, on which localis-
ing function of the latter depends, are exclusively
radial. But not so the connections between the bell
and the polypite, which render it possible for the
one to be aware that something is wrong somewhere
in the other. For if the whole animal be cut into
a spiral with the polypite at one end, irritation of
the other end of the spiral, or any part of its length,
causes the polypite to sway about from side to side
trying to find the offending body. And here it is
important to observe that wherever a portion of one

1876 MEDUS 95

of the radial tubes occurs in the course of the spiral,
irritation of that portion causes a much stronger re-
sponse on the part of the polypite than does irrita-
tion of any of the general bell-tissue, even though
this be situated much nearer to the polypite. This
seems to show that the nervous plexus, if present,
has its constituent fibres aggregated into trunks in
the course of the nutriment tubes.

Thus far, then, I should be inclined to adopt the
nerve-plexus theory. But lastly, we come to another
species with a very large bell and a very small polypite.
Irritation of margin or radial tubes causes the animal to
go into a violent spasm, but irritation of the general
muscular layer only causes an ordinary locomotor
contraction. On cutting the whole animal into a spiral,
and irritating the extreme end of several marginal
strips, the entire muscular part of the spiral goes
into spasm. On interposing a great number of
interdigitating cuts in the course of the spiral,
there is no difference in these results. Now the
question is, What is the nature of the tissue that
conducts impressions from the ganglionic tissue to
the muscular, making the latter go into a spasm ?
A spasm is as different as possible from an ordinary
contraction, and will continue to pass long after the
ordinary contractions have been blocked by severity
of section. It is scarcely possible to suppose a
nerve-plexus here—the tolerance towards section
being so great, although it varies in different cases.
Besides, suppose this to be a segment of animal cut as
represented. On irritating margin at a all the bell
goes into a spasm, and itis evident that whatever the

26 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875-

nature of the conductile tissue, all the connections
must pass through the tract of tissue at 6. Yet on
irritating that tract no spasm is given. I cannot
understand this on any view as to the nature of the
conductile tissue.

Altogether, then, this part of the inquiry is very
perplexing. Other parts are definite enough. All the
poisons, for instance, yield very definite results, which
are in conformity with their actions elsewhere.

I have had no time to do anything at the histology
as yet. Would it be worth while for me to send you

various species in a
b little sea water? They
would arrive in a toler-
ably fresh condition,
but would require to be
examined at once. I
might try sending some
in spirit and others in
chromic acid. I have
made a few preliminary
experiments with the galvanometer on Sarsia, placing
one electrode on the margin and another on the
muscular sheet, but without any decided results. I
also tried placing a Sarsia in one beaker and simple
sea water in another, connecting by means of the
electrodes, but no disturbance was observable.

GL
Fic. 1.

June 4.
I am working very hard just now, as there are so
many irons to keep hot at once. It is too soon yet
to see the results of spring grafting on the many

1876 MEDUSA 27

plants I have operated on, and I have not had time
to do anything with animals since I left London.

The Meduse have now come on in their legion,
and occupy my undivided attcntion. The results so
far have proved as definite as they are interesting
and important. The following is a summary of the
principal.

All genera of naked-eyed yet examined become
immediately and permanently paralysed (except
polypite) upon excision of margin, but not so with
the covered-eyed.

The organism thus mutilated responds with a
single contraction to a nip with the forceps, also to
various chemical stimuli. The chain of ganglia do
the same, and further resemble the mutilated organism
in contracting once to both make and break of direct
or of induced shock. They differ, however, in one
important particular: the severed margin retains its
sensibility to the induced shock much longer than to
the direct, while with the necto-calyx the converse
is the case—the latter responding vigorously to make
and break of direct current after it has ceased to be
affected by even interrupted current with secondary
coil pushed up to zero (one cell).

A strange and, so far as 1am aware, an unparalleled
phenomenon is sometimes manifested by Sarsia after
removal of ganglia. It only happens in about one
case out of ten, and never except in response to either
chemical or electrical stimulation. A bell quite
paralysed, and which may have responded normally
enough to stimulation for a number of times, sud-
denly begins an active shivering motion, which may

28 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875=

last from a minute to half an hour. This motion is
totally different from anything exhibited by the
animal when alive, and after ceasing never recom-
mences without fresh stimulation. The shivering
appearance, I think, is due to the various systems of
muscles contracting without co-ordination, but why
it should take place in some cases and not in others,
I am quite unable to determine.

Irritability of bell to shocks increases progres-
sively from centre to circumference, and is greatest
when electrodes are placed on marginal canal. Also
a similar progressive increase is observable on ap-
proaching one of the radial canals, and is greatest
when electrodes are placed on one of these. (I may
observe that however neat a person’s fingers may be
it would be simply impossible to conduct these
and other observations of the same nature without
a mechanical stage. The electrodes must be needle-
points passed through cords, the latter being sup-
ported by a copper wire fixed to the stage, and
therefore moveable with it; and I defy anybody to
get the electrodes into the field, and at the same
time upon the marginal canal, unless they all move
together.)

Sarsia stands an astonishing amount of section
without losing nervous conductibility. For instance,
the whole organism may be cut into a three-turned
spiral, and on irritating the end, the whole contracts ;
yet a moment’s thought will show how trying this
mode of section is to nervous connections. As the
animal may be cut, as in the following diagram,
which represents the whole organism in projection—

1876 MEDUSZ 99

the dotted lines being the canals, and the thick ones
the cuts—on now iritating any part of the animal,
the whole contracts, but the co-ordination power is
lost, both in jomeneone contraction and for those i in
response to stimuli. :

If the entire margin be cut out in a continuous
piece save a small portion to unite it with the bell,
and if the distal end be now irritated, a main of
contraction runs along the. entire severed part till it
arrives at the small united part, when the whole bell
contracts. I should like
to try whether under
such circumstances the
margin would be thrown
into a state of electro-
tonus, but only having
one cell I am not able to
make out this point satis-
factorily.

The severed margin
continues its rhythmical
contractions for two or
three days. I am now trying the effect of different
chemical stimuli, and if you can suggest any further
line of experimentation, of course I shall be very
pleased. Only, if you can think of anything which
might be tried and which is not mentioned in this
letter, please write soon, as the Sarsia will not last
much longer, and they are the best adapted for my
purposes.

Fie. 2.

I remain, very sincerely yours,
Gro. J. Romans.

30 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875—

P.S.—I should have said that neither gold nor
silver brings out any nervous tissue.

Medusa muscle is not doubly refracting, but then
none that I have here seen is striated, and unstriated
muscle is not doubly refracting anywhere, is it ?

Dunskaith: June 24.

Many thanks for your long and suggestive letter.
The poisons also are most acceptable. I have
waited before writing to try effect of the latter, but
the weather has been so stormy that no jelly-fish
could be got.

The most interesting observations I have made
since writing before are the following. Unmutilated
Sarsia in a dark room seek a beam of light thrown
into the bell-jar containing them, and this as keenly
as do moths. But when the so-called eye-specks are
cut out, the animal no longer cares for light.

I have only come across two species of luminous
Medusze—both, I believe, as yet undescribed—and in
these the light is emitted from the margin alone, and,
with electrical stimulus, is strictly confined to the
intra-polar regions, being strongest at the two
poles.

There is no doubt at all about the muscular
nature of the fibres we saw. In the larger kinds af
Meduse (the covered-eyed) these fibres are much
coarser, and are clearly seen to be arranged in con-
centric bundles, having four or five fibres in each
bundle. Alternating with these bundles, and about
the same width as these, are strands of undifferen-

1876 MEDUSZ 31

tiated protoplasm. These strands are not sponta-
neously contractile, although their dimensions are
altered by the contraction of the muscular branch
on each of their sides. No part of the tissue is
doubly refracting in the fresh state. Is there any
way of treating it with a view of bringing out this
property if latent, so to speak? The peculiarity is
not due to the transparency of the tissue, for I find
that the muscular fibre of the transparent osseous
fish Leptocephalus is as doubly-refracting as could be
wished. There are no signs of strie, but Agassiz
says that in some of the Mediterranean species striz
are well marked. Butif both striated and unstriated
fibres are elsewhere doubly-refracting, it does not, I
suppose, much signify whether or not the muscles of
Meduse are striated—so far, I mean, as the pecu-
harity in question is concerned.

I wish you would say what you think about this
peculiarity in relation to a subject that I have been
working up. You no doubt remember that in ——’s
paper that we heard read, he said that the snail’s heart
had no nerves or ganglia, but nevertheless behaved
like nervous tissue in responding to electrical stimula-
tion. He hence concluded that in undifferentiated
tissue of this kind, nerve and muscle were, so to
speak, amalgamated. Now it was principally with
the view of testing this idea about ‘ physiological
continuity’ that I tried the mode of spiral and other
sections mentioned in my last letter. The result of
these sections, it seems to me, is to preclude, on the
one hand, the supposition that the muscular tissue
of Meduse is merely muscular (for no muscle would

39 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875-

respond to local stimulus throughout its substance
when so severely cut), and, on the other hand, the
supposition of a nervous plexus (for this would
require to be so very intricate, and the hypothesis of
scattered cells is without microscopical evidence here
or elsewhere). I think, therefore, that we are driven
to conclude that the muscular tissue of Meduse,
though more differentiated into fibres than is the
contractile tissue of the snail’s heart, is, as much as
the latter, an instance of ‘physiological continuity.’
(Whether or not the interfascicular protoplasmic
substance before spoken of is the seat of this physio-
logical continuity is here immaterial.) Dr. Foster
fully agrees with me in this deduction from my ex-
periments, and is very pleased about the latter, thus
affording additional support to his views. But what
I want to ask you is, supposing the interfascicular
substance to have no share in conducting stimulus
(and I have no evidence of its presence in Sarsia),
and hence that the properties of nerve and muscle
are united in the contractile fibres of Medusze—sup-
posing this, do you think that the peculiarity you
observed in the molecular conformation of this tissue,
considered as muscular, is likely to have anything to
do with this peculiarity in its function ?

I know you do not like theory, so I shall return
to fact. There can be no doubt whatever that the
seat of spontaneity is as much localised in the
margin as the sensibility to stimulus is diffused
throughout the bell. There must, therefore, be some
structural difference in the tissue here to correspond
to this great functional difference. Agassiz is very

1876 MEDUSAS 33

positive in describing a chain of cells running round
the inner part of the marginal canal. Now, although
I sometimes see a thin cord-like appearance here, I
should not dare to say it was nervous. Gold cer-
tainly stains it, but it also stains many other parts
of the tissue, and until I can see cells here I cannot
be sure about a viszble nervous cord. The cord I do
see may be the wall of the marginal canal. I intend
to persevere, however, trying your suggestions, also
osmic acid.

I can get no indications of electrical disturbance
during contraction in the way you suggest—at least
not with Sarsia; but I intend to try with some of
the larger Meduse.

Some, apparatus is coming from Cambridge to
enable me to test for electrotonus and Pfliiger’s law.
I shall apply it to the luminous Medusz also, whose
light, I forgot to say, is seen under the micro-
scope in the dark to proceed not only from the
margin alone, but from that particular part of the
margin where Agassiz describes his chain of nervous
cells.

Gro. J. Romanzs.

From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.

Down, Beckenham, Kent: July 18, 1875.

I have been much interested by your letter, and
am truly delighted at the prospect of success. Such
energy as yours is almost sure to command victory.
The world will be much more influenced by experi-
ments on animals than on plants. But in any case

D

34 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875-

I think a large number of successful results will be
necessary to convince physiologists. It is rash to
be sanguine, but it will be splendid if you succeed.
My object in writing has been to say that it has
only just occurred to me that I have not sent you a
copy of my ‘Insectivorous Plants;’ if you would
care to have a copy, and do not possess one, send
me a postcard, and one shall be sent. If I do not
hear, I shall understand.
Yours very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

Dunskaith, Nigg P.O., Ross-shire, N.B.: July 20, 1875.

My dear Mr. Darwin,— Your letter arrived just in
time to prevent my sending an order to my book-
seller for ‘Insectivorous Plants,’ for, of course, it is
needless to say that I shall highly value a copy from
yourself. At first I intended to wait until I should have.
more time to enjoy the work, but a passage in this
week’s ‘ Nature’ determined me to get a copy at once.
This passage was one about reflex action, and I am
very anxious to see what you say about’ this, because
in a paper I have prepared for the ‘B.A.’ on Meduse
I have had occasion to insist upon the occurrence
of reflex action in the case of these, notwithstand-
ing the absence of any distinguishable system of
afferent and efferent nerves. But as physiologists
have been so long accustomed to associate the pheno-
mena of reflex action with some such distinguishable
system, I was afraid that they might think me rather
audacious in propounding the doctrine, that there is

1876 REFLEX ACTION IN MEDUSZ& 35

such a thing as reflex action without well-defined
structural channels for it to occur in. But if you
have found something of the same sort in plants, of
course I shall be very glad to have your authority to
quote. And I think it follows deductively from the
general theory of evolution, that reflex action ought
to be present before the lnes in which it flows are
sufficiently differentiated to become distinguishable as
nerves.

I am very glad that you are pleased with my pro-
gress so far.

From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.
Down, Beckenham, Kent: Sept. 24.

I shall be very glad to propose you for Linnean
Soc., as I have just done for my son Francis. There
is no doubt about your election. I have written for
blank form. Please let me have your title, B.A. or
M.A., and title of any book or papers, to which I could
add ‘ various contributions to ‘‘ Nature.”’’ Also shall
I say ‘attached to Physiology and Zoology’? When
I have signed whole, shall I send a paper to Hooker
and others at Kew; or do you wish it sent to some one
else for signature? Three signatures are required.
The paper will have to be read twice or thrice when
Soc. meets in November. But you could get books
out of library or out of that of Royal Soc. by my
signature or that of any other member.

I am terribly sorry about the onions, asI expected
sreat things from them, the seeds coming, I believe,
always true. As tubers of potatoes graft so well,

D2

36 GHORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875—

would it not be good to try other tubers as of dahlias
and other plants? I have been re-writing a large
portion of the chapter on Pangenesis, and it has been
awfully hard work. I will, of course, send you a copy
when the work is printed. How I do hope that your
fowls will survive! F. Galton was here for a few hours
yéSterday ; I see that he is much less sceptical about
Pangenesis than he was.

Dunskaith, Nigg, Ross-shire, N.B., Sept. 29, 1875. —

My dear Mr. Darwin,—Many thanks for your kind
letter. JI am an M.A. and a fellow of the Philosophi-
cal Society of Cambridge, but otherwise I am nothing,
nor have I any publication worth alluding to. I sup-
pose, however, this will not matter if I am proposed
by yourself, Dr. Hooker, and Mr. Dyer. I think there
would be no harm in saying ‘attached to Physiology
and Zoology.’ I may read a paper before the Linnean
next November on some new species of Meduse, but
I think it is better not to allude to any contributions
in advance.

Your letter about Pangenesis made me long for
success more even than does the biological importance
of the problem.* Yesterday I dug up all my potatoes.

' The experiments in graft-hybridisation were to prove that formative
material (or gemmules) was actually present in the general tissues of
plants and was capable of uniting with the gemmules of another plant
and thus of reproducing the entire organism. For ifthe hybrid, afterwards
produced, presents equally the characters of the scion and the stock,
then formative material must have been present in the tissues of the
scion, and it is demonstrated that the somatic tissues of the scion have
exercised an effect on the germinal elements of the stock, inasmuch as it

1876 PANGENESIS 37

Some of the produce looked suspicious, but more than
this I should not dare to say. By this post I send
you a box containing some of the best specimens,
thinking you may like to see them. The lots marked
A and B are sent for comparison with the others,
being the kinds I grafted together. If you think it
worth while to have the eyes of any of the other lots
planted, you might either do so yourself or send them
back to me. Lot C is the queerest, and to my perhaps
too partial eye looks very lke a mixture. In the case
of this graft the seed potato was rotten when dug up
yesterday, and this may account for the small size of
the tubers sent.

I did try dahlias and peonies, but in the former the
‘finger and toe’ shape of the tubers, with the eyes
situated in the worst parts for cutting out clearly,
prevented me from getting adhesion in any one case.
With the peonies I was too late in beginning. It was
also too late in the year when I began Pangenesis to
try the spring flowers, but I hope to do so extensively
this winter. Next year I shall try grafting beets and
mangolds by cutting the young white root into a
square shape and placing four red roots all round. In
this way the white one will have a maximum surface
exposed to the influence of the red ones. I shall also
try grafting the crown of the red in the root of the
white variety, and vice versd. J have already done
this very successfully with carrots—making a little

has caused their offspring in part to resemble it. Such facts Romanes
considered to be fully in harmony with the theory of Pangenesis, and
inconsistent with any theory which supposes that mo part of the parent
organism generates any of the formative material.

38 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875—'

hole in the top of the root, and fitting in the crown
hke a cork in a bottle.

I shall look forward with great interest to the
appearance of the new edition of the ‘ Variation.’ I
only wish I had begun Pangenesis a year earlier,
when perhaps by this time the graft-hybrid question
might have been settled. Perhaps, however, it is as
well to have this question once more presented in its
a priori form, for if it can soon afterwards be proved
that a graft hybrid is possible, the theoretical import-
ance of the fact may be more generally appreciated.

A day or two ago I saw on a farm near this a
beautiful specimen of striping on a horse. The
animal is a dark dun cob, with a very divided shoulder
stripe coming off from the spinal one on either side.
Each shoulder stripe then divides into three prongs,
and each prong ends ina sharp point. All the legs
are black as far as the knees (carpi and tarsz), and
above the black part for a considerable distance all
four legs are deeply marked with numerous stripes.
I can get no history of parentage. If you would like
a drawing I can send one, but perhaps you have |
already as many cases as you want in the ‘ Variation.’

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

Gro. J. Romanss.

To Professor EH. Schafer.
Dunskaith : Sept. 1875.
My dear Schifer,—I have to apologise for having
left your last letter so long unanswered, but there
has really been nothing going on here to make it
worth while writing.

1876 THE WORK ON MEDUSA 39

I gave my careful consideration to all you said
about publishing, and at one time nearly decided to
wait another year. But eventually I sent in the
paper.’ It seems to me that the histology can very
well wait for future treatment—that its absence is
not sufficient justification for withholding the results
I have already observed. These results, after all, are
the most important; for they prove that some struc-
tural modification there must be ; whether or not this
modification is vistble is of subordinate interest.
Besides, I do not, of course, intend to abandon the
microscopical part of the subject altogether. In my
view, inquiry into function in this case must cer-
tainly always precede inquiry into structure; for
although; when all the work shall have been collected
into one monograph, the histology must occupy the
first place in order of presentation, very little way
could have been made by following this order of in-
vestigation.

I also had to reflect, that if I postponed publica-
tion, it would be impossible to expect the R.S. to
publish the results im extenso,—1t.e., I should have to
bring out the work through some other medium.

And in addition to all this, there came a letter
from Foster preaching high morality about it being
the duty of all scientific workers to give their results
to others as soon as possible.

As I said before, I thank you very much for the
consideration and advice you have given, but I know
that you would not like me to feel that the expression

1 To the Royal Society.

40 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875—

of your opinion in a matter with which you are not so
fully acquainted as myself should lay me under any
obligation to be led by it, after mature consideration
seemed to show that the best course for me to follow
was the one which I took.

Hoping soon to see you, I remain, very sincerely
yours,

Gro. J. Romanss.

P.S.—I forgot to say that I acted upon your sug-
gestion about the Linnean, and have been proposed
by Darwin, Hooker, and Huxley.

From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.
Down, Beckenham, Kent: July 12, 1875.

I am correcting a second edition of ‘ Var. under
Dom.,’ and find that I must doit pretty fully. There-
fore I give a short abstract of potato graft hybrids,
and I want to know whether I did not send you a
reference about beet. Did you look to this, and can
you tell me anything about it? I hope with all my
heart that you are getting on pretty well with your
experiments ; I have been led to think a good deal on
the subject, and am convinced of its high importance,
though it will take years of hammering before physio-
logists will admit that the sexual organs only collect
the generative elements.

The edition will be published in November, and
then you will see all that I have collected, but I
believe that you saw all the more important cases.
The case of vine in ‘ Gardeners’ Chronicle’ which I

1876 GRAFTING 41

sent you I think may only be a bud-variation, not
due to grafting.

I have heard indirectly of your splendid success
with nerves of Meduse. We have been at Abinger
Hall for a month for rest which I much required, and
I saw there the cut-leaved vine, which seems splendid
for graft hybridisation.

Yours very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

To C. Darwin, Esq.
Dunskaith : July 14, 1875.

I was very glad to receive your letter, having been
previously undecided whether to write and let you
know how.I am getting on, or to wait until I got a
veritable hybrid.

In one of your letters you advised me to look up
the ‘beet’ case, but Icould nowhere find any references
to,it. — Dr, Hooker told me that although he could
not then remember the man’s name, he remembered
that the experimenter did not save the seed, but dug
up his roots for exhibition. I forget whether it was
Dr. Masters, Bentham, or Mr. Dyer who told me
that the experiment had been performed in Ireland,
although they could not remember by whom. Butif
the experimenter did not save the seed, the mere fact
of his sticking two roots together would have no
bearing on Pangenesis, and so I did not take any
trouble to find out who the experimenter was.

As you have heard about the Medusex, I fear you
will infer that they must have diverted my attention
from Pangenesis ; but although it is true that they

49 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875—

have consumed a great deal of time and energy, I have
done my best to keep Pangenesis in the foreground. —

The proximate success of my grafting is all that I
can desire, although, of course, it is as yet too early
in the year to know what the uwltvmate success will
be. Imean that, although I cannot yet tell whether
the tissue of one variety is affecting that of the other,
I have obtained intimate adhesion in the great
majority of experiments. Potatoes, however, are an
exception, for at first I began with a method which I
thought very cunning, and which I still think would
have been successful but for one httle oversight. The
method was to punch out the eyes with an electro-
plated cork-borer, and replace them in a flat-bottomed
hole of a slightly smaller size made with another
instrument in the other tuber. The fit, of course,
was always perfect ; but what I went wrong in was not
having the cork-borers made of the best steel ; for
after I got about one hundred pota*oes planted out,
I found that the inserted plugs did not adhere. I
therefore tried some sections with an exceedingly
sharp knife that surgeons use for amputating, and
the surfaces cut with this always adhered under
pressure. The knife, however, must be set up in a
cuide, in order to get the surfaces perfectly flat. Next
year I shall get cork-borers made of the same steel
as this knife is made of, and then hope to turn out
eraft-hybrids by the score. Even this year, however,
a great many of my potatoes are coming up, so I hope
that some of the eyes may have struck. I think it
is desirable to get some easy way of experimenting
with potatoes (such as the cork-boring plan), and ore

1876 GRAFTING 43

independent of delicacy in manipulation, for then
everybody could verify the results for himself, and not,
as now, look with suspicion upon the success of other
people.

With beans I get very good adhesion of the young
shoots, but the parts which grow after the operation
always continue separate. In some cases I am trying
a succession of operations as the plant grows.

With beetroots and mangold-wurzel of al
varieties, adhesion is certain to occur with my method
of getting up great pressure by allowing the plants
to grow for a few days inside the binding. I have
therefore made grafts of all ages, beginning with
roots only an inch or two long and as thin as threads.

The other vegetables also are doing well, but with
flowers I have had no success. The vine-cuttings
were too young to do anything with this year, but I
hear from my cousin, who has charge of them, that
they are doing well. They certainly have very extra-
ordinary leaves.

This year I never expected to be more than one
in which to gain experience, for embryo grafting,
as it has never been tried by anybody, cannot be
learned about except by experiments. But as I am
a young man yet, and hope to do a good deal of
‘hammering,’ I shall not let Pangenesis alone until
I feel quite sure that it does not admit of being any
further driven home by experimental work; and even
if I never get positive results, I shall always continue
to believe in the theory.

I am very sorry to hear that you ‘much needed
rest, and do earnestly hope that you will not work

44 GHORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875—

too hard over the new edition of one of the most
laborious treatises in our language—a treatise to
which we always refer for every kind of information
that we cannot find anywhere else.

Dunskaith: November 7.

I have to-day sent you a beautifully successful
graft. Itis of a red and white carrot, each bisected
longitudinally, and two of the opposite halves joined.
You will see that the union is very intimate, and
that the originally red half has become wholly white.
The graft was made about three months ago, at which
time the carrots were very small, but the colours very
decided. I think, therefore, that unless red carrots
ever turn into white ones—which, I suppose, is absurd
—the specimen I send is a graft-hybrid so far as the
parts in contact are concerned. It will be of great
importance, as you observed in your last letter, in a
case like this, to see if the other parts are affected—
z.e. to get the plant to seed if possible. This, I
suppose, can only be done at this late season with so
young a plant by putting it in a greenhouse. Per-
haps, therefore, you might pot it, as soon as it arrives,
and keep it till I go up. If you do not care to take
charge of it altogether, I can then get a home for it
somewhere in the South. It will not require a deep
pot, for I see that I have cut through the end of one
of the roots. It would be as well, before potting, to
cut off the end of the other root also, so that the one
half may not grow longer than the other, and thus
perhaps assert an undue amount of influence during
the subsequent history of the hybrid. If the plant

1876 GRAFTING 45

when you get it, or after potting, shows signs of
drooping, I should suggest clipping off the older
leaves to check evaporation: having found this a
good plan with beets, &c.

In the same box with the hybrid there is another
carrot. This is for comparison, it having been from
the same seed and grafted (upon the crown) at the
same time as the originally red half of the hybrid.

IT am doubtful about the potatoes I sent. On
looking over a number of ‘red flukes,’ I find some
here and there are mottled. At any rate, I shall try
other varieties next year, and not say anything
about this doubtful case.

I forgot to say that the hybrid carrot is the only
specimen of longitudinal grafting which I tried with
carrots, having been somewhat disheartened with
this method by the persistent way in which beets and
mangolds refuse to blend when grafted longitudinally.
There have thus been no failures with carrots grafted
in this way.

If it is not too late, I may suggest that the
passage in the ‘ Variation ’ about the deformity of the
sternum in poultry had better be modified. I have
this year tried some -experiments upon Brahma
chickens, and find that the deformity in question is
caused by lazy habits of roosting—the constantly
recurring pressure of the roost upon the cartilaginous
sternum causing it to yield at the place where the
pressure is exerted. The experiments consisted
merely in confining some of a brood of young
chickens in a place without any roost, and allowing
the others to go about with all the March chickens.

46 GEORGH JOHN ROMANES 1875—

The former lot have the sternum quite straight, and
the latter lot have it deeply notched.

I write to thank you for the copy of the new
edition of the ‘ Variation’ which I received a few days
ago. Jam very glad to see that you have thought
my views about rudimentary organs worth a place,
and that you speak so well of them.

The chapter on Pangenesis is admirable. The
case is so strong, thatit makes me more anxious than
ever to get positive results in this year’s experiments.
I mean there seems less doubt than ever that such
results must be obtainable if one hammers long
enough. I did not know that there were so many
cases of graft-hybridisation in potatoes. Perhaps it
will be better this year to give one’s mazn energies to
other vegetables.

I find that a German, Dr. Eimer, is on the scent
of the jelly-fish, but he does not seem to have done
much work as yet. It is arranged that I am to have
a Friday evening at the Institution soon after Easter,
to tell the people about my own work.

From C. Darwin to G. J. Lomanes.

6 Queen Anne Street: April 29, 1876.
I must have the pleasure of saying that I have
just heard that your lecture was a splendid success in
all ways. I further hear that you were as cool as
the Arctic regions. It is evident that there is no
occasion for you to feel your pulse under the circum-

stances which we discussed.
Yours very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

1876 GRAFTING 47

To C. Darwin, Esq.

I write to thank you for the slip about graft
hybrids, and to say that as yet I have obtained no
results myself. This place is too far north to admit
of the seeds ripening properly after the plants have
been thrown back several weeks by the operation.
This applies especially to onions, so next year—the
neck of Meduse having now been broken—I intend to
wait in London till all the grafting and planting out
is finished. I do not think you will regret my not
having followed such a course this year when you
come to read the paper I am now writing. I never
did such a successful four months’ work, and if as
many years suffice to answer all the burning questions
that are raised by it, I think they will require to be |
years well spent.

And this makes me remember that I have to
apologise for the inordinate time I have kept your
copy of Professor Hiackel’s essay on Perigenesis.
Since you sent it I have scarcely had any time for
reading, and as you said there was no hurry about
returning it, I have let it stand over till this paper is
off my hands.

Lankester seems to have doubled up Slade in fine
style. I suppose the latter has always trusted to his
customers not liking to resort to violent methods.
His defence in the ‘Times’ about the locked slates
was unusually weak. ‘Once a thief always a thief’
applies, I suppose, to his case; but it is hard to under-
stand how Wallace could not have seen him inverting

48 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875=

the table on his head. In this we have another of
those perplexing contradictions with which the whole
subject appears to be teeming. I do hope next winter
to settle for myself the simple issue between Ghost
versus Goose.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Gro. J. Romans.

To C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace.

Professor Hickel’s paper on the Medusez is called
‘Beitrag zur Naturgeschichte der Hydromedusen ’
(Leipzig, 1865). Professor Huxley has lent me his
copy, but says he wants it returned in a week or
two. I ought certainly to have the work by me next
summer, so I thought that if you happen to have it
and can spare it till next autumn, I need not send
to Germany for it, remembering what you said when
I last saw you. I should also much like to see the
other paper of Hickel’s about cutting up the ova of
Medusz.

I have an idea that you are afraid I am neglecting
Pangenesis for Meduse. If so, I should lke to
assure you that such is not the case. Last year I
gave more time to the former than to the latter
inquiry ; and although the results proved very dispro-
portionate, this was only due to the fact that the one
line of work was more difficult than the other. How-
ever, I always expected that the first year would
require to be spent in breaking up the ground, and I
am quite satisfied with the experience which this

1876 PANGENKESIS VY. MEDUSA 49

work has brought me. I confess, however, that but
for personal reasons I should have postponed Pan-
genesis and worked the Meduse right through in one
year. There is a glitter about immediate results
which is very alluring.

From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.

I will send the books off by railway on Monday or
Tuesday. You may keep that on Meduse until I ask
for it, which will probably be never. That on Siphono-
phora I should like to have back at some future time.

So far from thinking that you have neglected
Pangenesis, I have been astonished and pleased that
your splendid work on the jelly-fishes did not make
you throw every other subject to the dogs. Even if
your experiments turn out a failure, I believe that
there will be some compensation in the skill you will
have acquired.

P.S.—I have been having more correspondence
with Galton about Pangenesis, and my confusion is
more confounded with respect to the points in which
he differs from me.

About this time Mr. Romanes made the acquaint-
ance of Mr. Herbert Spencer and also that of Mr.
G. H. Lewes, and of the wonderful woman known to
the outer world as George Eliot, and to a small circle
of friends as Mrs. Lewes.

Mr. Romanes was one of the favoured few who were
allowed to join the charmed circle at the Priory on
Sunday afternoons. He enjoyed the few talks he had
with George Eliot, and, amongst other reminiscences,

1D

50 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1875-
he told a characteristic story of Lewes. One after-
noon, when there were very few people at the Priory,
the conversation drifted on to the Bible, and George
Eliot and Mr. Romanes began a discussion on the
merits of the two translations of the Psalms best
known to English people—the Bible and the Prayer
Book version. They ‘quoted’ at each other for a
short time, and then Lewes, who had not his Bible at
‘his finger ends to the extent the other two had, ex-
claimed impatiently, ‘Come, we’ve had enough of
this; we might as well be in a Sunday school.’ Both
George Eliot and Mr. Romanes, by the way, preferred
the Bible version.

In one of the letters to Mr. Darwin, Mr. Romanes
alludes to the question of spiritualism, and his own
determination to investigate the question so far as in
him lay for himself.

He worked a good deal at spiritualism for a year
or two, and he never could assure himself that there
was absolutely nothing in spiritualism, no unknown
phenomena underlying the mass of fraud, and trickery,
and vulgarity which has surrounded the so-called
manifestations.

He was always willing to investigate such anlbfacte
as hypnotism, thought reading, &c., and in 1880 he
wrote an article for the September number of the
‘Nineteenth Century,’ in which he pleads for a candid
and unprejudiced investigation of the facts. The
article was a review of Heidenhain’s ‘ Der sogenannte
thierische Magnetismus.’

The work on Pangenesis and on Meduse went on
through 1876, and some letters to and from Mr.
Darwin are here inserted.

-1876 PANGENESIS bl

_ From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes.

Dear Romanes,—As you are interested in Pan-
genesis, and will some day, I hope, convert an ‘ airy
nothing’ into a substantial theory, therefore I send
by this post an essay by Hickel, attacking ‘ Pan.,’
and substituting a molecular hypothesis. If I under-
stand his views rightly, he would say that with a bird
which strengthened its wings by use, the formative
protoplasm of the strengthened parts becomes changed,
and its molecular vibrations consequently changed,
‘and that their vibrations are transmitted throughout
the whole frame of the bird. How he explains rever-
‘sion to a remote ancestor I know not. Perhaps I have
misunderstood him, though I have skimmed the whole
with some care. He lays much stress on inheritance
being a form of unconscious memory, but how far this
is part of his molecular vibration I do not understand.
His views make nothing clearer to me, but this may
‘be my fault. No one, I presume, would doubt about
molecular movements of some kind. His essay is
clever and striking. If you read 1t (but you must not
‘on my account), I should much like to hear your
judgment, and you can return it at any time.

We have come here for rest for me, which I much
_needed, and shall remain here for about ten days more,
and then home to work, which is my sole pleasure in
life. I hope your splendid Meduse work and your
experiments on Pan. are going on well. I heard
from my son Frank yesterday that he was feverish
with a cold, and could not dine with the Physiologists,
B2

52 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1876=

which I am very sorry for, as I should have heard
what they think about the new Bill.’ I see that you
are one of the secretaries to this young society. I
was very much gratified by the wholly unexpected
honour of being elected one of the hon. members.
This mark of sympathy has pleased me to a very high
degree.
Believe me, yours very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

Hiackel gives reference to a paper on Pan. of which
I have never heard.

I fear that you will have difficulty in reading my
scrawl.

Do you know who are the other hon. members
of your Society ?

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin.

Dunskaith, Nigg, Ross-shire, N.B.: June 1, 1876.

Many thanks for your long and kind letter.
Also for the accompanying essay. It seems to me,
from your epitome of the latter, that if Pangene-
sis is ‘airy,’ Perigenesis must be almost vacuous.
However, I anticipate much pleasure in reading the
work, for anything by Hickel on such a subject
cannot fail to be interesting.

I am sorry to hear that you ‘much needed rest,’
and also about Frank. I had hoped, too, that you
would have mentioned Mrs. Litchfield.

Having been away from London for several weeks,

1 For the Suppression of Vivisection.

1877 THE PHYSIOLOGICAL SOCIETY 53

I cannot say anything about the feeling with regard
to the Bill. Sanderson and Foster think it ‘ stringent,’
and so I suppose will all the Physiologists. The
former wants me to write articles in the ‘ Fortnightly,’
‘to make people take more sensible views on vivisec-
tion: ’ but I cannot see that it would be of any use.
The heat of battle is not the time for us to expect
fanatics to listen to ‘sense.’ Do you not think so?

IT am sure the Physiological Society will be very
pleased that you like being an hon. member, for it
was on your account that honorary membership was
instituted. At the committee meeting which was
called to frame the constitution of the Society, the
chairman (Dr. Foster) ejaculated with reference to you
—‘ Let us pile on him all the honour we possibly can,’
a sentiment which was heartily enough responded to
by all present; but when it came to considering what
form the expression of it was to take, it was found
that a nascent society could do nothing further than
make honorary members. Accordingly you were
made an hon. member all by yourself; but later on
it was thought, on the one hand, that you might feel
lonely, and on the other that in a Physiological
Society the most suitable companion for you was Dr.
Sharpey.

Perhaps a ‘secretary’ ought not to be giving all
the details about committee meetings, but if not, 1
know you will take it in confidence. It seems to me
that you never fully realise the height of your
pedestal, so that I am glad of any little opportunity
of this kind to show you the angle at which the
upturned faces are inclined. Iam glad, too, to see

54 ’ GEORGE JOHN ROMANES °- 1876="

from the inscription in Hickel’s essay, that he is still

doing his best to show that in Germany this angle is

fast being lost in horizontality.
As the spring was so backward, the plants at Kew

were too small to graft before I had to leave for the’
Meduse. But this does not much matter, as I had:

a lot of vegetables planted down here also, which are

doing well. Pangenesis I always expected would

require a good deal of patience, and one year’s work
on such a subject only counts for apprenticeship. If,
by the time I am a skilled workman, I am not able
to send anything to the international exhibitions, I
shall not envy any one else who may resolve to enter
the same trade.

I am working hard at the jelly-fish just now, and
have succeeded in extracting several new confessions.
The nerve-plexus theory, in particular, is coming out
with greater clearness. The new poisons, too, are
giving very interesting results. I suppose you do
not happen to know where I could get any snake
poison. The ‘ Phil. Trans.’ seem very long in coming
out. Ihave not yet got the proofs of my paper.

June 6, 1877.

I am very glad you sent me the extract from
Lamarck, for I had just been to the R.S., hunting
up several of the older authors to see whether any
mention had been made of the theory before Spencer
wrote.

While at Down I forgot my speculations about
inter-crossing, and, therefore, although I do not

1877 GUINEA-PIGS AND NETTLES 55

think they are much worth, I send you a copy of my
notes. The ideas are not clearly put—having been
jotted down a few years ago merely to preserve them
—but no doubt you will be able to understand them.
Do not trouble to return the MS. |

I had intended to ask you while at Down if you
happen to know whether stinging nettles are endemic
plants in South America. The reason I should like
to know is, that last year it occurred to me that the
stinging property probably has reference to some
widely distributed class of animals, and being told—
rightly or wrongly, I do not know—that. ruminants
do not object to them, I tried whether my tame
rabbits would eat freshly plucked nettles. [found they
would not do so even when very hungry, but in the
same out-house with the rabbits there were confined
a number of guinea-pigs, and these always set upon
the nettles with great avidity. Their noses were
tremendously stung, however, so that between every
few nibbles they had to stop and scratch vigorously.
After this process had been gone through several
times, the guinea-pig would generally become furious,
and thinking apparently that its pain must have had
some more obvious cause than the nettles, would
fall upon its nearest neighbour at the feast, when a
guinea-pig fight would ensue. I have seldom seen
a more amusing spectacle than twenty or thirty of
these animals closely packed round a bunch of
nettles, a third part or so eating with apparent relish,
another third scratching their noses, and the re-
maining third fighting with one another. But what
I want to ask you is this. Does it not seem that

56 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1876—

the marked difference in the behaviour of the
rabbits and the guinea-pigs points to inherited experi-
ence on the part of the former which is absent in the
case of the latter? If nettles are not endemic in
South America, this inference would seem almost
irresistible. Dr. Hooker tells me nettles grow there
now, but he does not know whether they did so before
America was visited by Europeans. Possibly there
might be some way of ascertaining.

I have now made a number of grafts at Kew. In
about a month, I should think, one could see which
are coming up as single and which as double sprouts.
If, therefore, Frank is going to work in the laboratory
in July, he might perhaps look over the bed (which
is just outside the door), and reject the double-stalked
specimens. I could trust him to do this better than
any one at Kew, and if the useless specimens were
rejected, there would afterwards be much less trouble
in protecting the valuable ones. But do not suggest
it unless you think it would be quite agreeable to
him. If he is in town within the next fortnight, I
wish he would look me up.

June 16.

I have deferred answering your letter until having
had a talk with Mr. Galton about rudimentary organs.
He thinks with me that if the normal size of a useful
organ is maintained in a species, when natural
selection is removed, the average size will tend to
become progressively reduced by inter-crossing, and
this down to whatever extent economy of growth
remains Operative in placing a premium on variations

1877 RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 57

below the average at any given stage in the history
of reduction.

I think I thoroughly well know your views about
natural selection. In writing the manuscript note,
so far as I remember, I had in view the possibility
which Huxley somewhere advocates, that nature may
sometimes make a considerable leap by selecting
from single variations. But it was not because of
this point that I sent you the note; it was with
reference to the possibility of nacural selection acting
on organic types as distinguished from individuals—a
possibility which you once told me did not seem at
all clear, although Wallace maintained it in conver-
sation.

I do not myself think that Allen’ made out his
points, although I do think that he has made an
effort in the right direction. It seems to me that
his fundamental principle has probably much truth
in it, viz. that esthetic pleasure in its last analysis is
an effect of normal or not excessive stimulation.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

Gro. J. Romanzs,

From C. Darwin, Esq.
Down, Beckenham, Kent: August 9.
My dear Romanes,—I have read your two articles
in ‘ Nature,’ and nothing can be clearer or more inte-
resting, though I had gathered your conclusions
clearly from your other papers. It seems to me that
unless you can show that your muslin (in your
1 Mr. Grant Allen.

58 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 18763

simile) is rather coarse, the transmission may be con-
sidered as passing in any direction from cell or unit,
of structure to cell or unit; and in this case the
transmission would be as in Dionea, but more
easily effected in certain lnes or directions than in
others. It is splendid work, and I hope you are
getting on well in all respects. The Mr. Lawless to
whom you refer is the Hon. Miss. Lawless, as I know,
for she sent me a very good manuscript about the
fertilisation of plants, which I have recommended
her to send to ‘ Nature.’

As for myself, Frank and I have been srnlgine
like slaves on the bloom on plants, with very poor
success ; as usual, almost everything goes differently
from what I had anticipated. But I have been abso-
lutely delighted at two things: Cohn, of Breslau, has
seen all the phenomena described by Frank in
Dipsacus, and thinks it a very remarkable discovery,
and is going to work with all reagents on the fila-
ments as Frank did, but no doubt he will know much
better how to do it. He will not pronounce whether
the filaments are some colloid substance or living
protoplasm ; I think he rather leans to latter, and he
quite sees that Frank does not pronounce dogmati-
cally on the question.

The second point which delighted me, seeing that
half of the botanists throughout Kurope have pub-
lished that the digestion of meat by plants is of no
use to them—(a mere pathological phenomenon as
one man says!)—-is that Frank has been feeding
‘under exactly similar conditions a large number of
plants of Drosera, and the effect is wonderful. On

1s77 MR. F. DARWIN ON. DROSERA 59°

the fed side the leaves are much. larger, differently |
coloured, and more numerous—flower stalks taller.
and more numerous, and, I believe, far more seed- ,
capsules, but these not yet counted. It is particu-
larly interesting that the leaves fed on meat contain”
very many more starch granules (no doubt owing to
more protoplasm being first formed), so that sections ,
stained with iodine of fed and unfed leaves are to,
the naked eye of very different colour.

There, I have boasted to my heart’s content ; anil
do you do the same, and tell me what you have ‘been
doing. 7

Yours very sincerely,

. Cu. Darwin.

From G. J. Romanes.

Dunskaith, Ross-shire: August 11, 1877.

I was very pleased to get your long and genial
letter, which I will answer seriatim.

The ‘muslin’ in the hypothetical plexus seems to
be very coarse in some specimens and finer in others:
—the young and active individuals enduring severer.
forms of section than the old. And in exploring by,
graduated stimuli, areas of different degrees of excita-
bility may be mapped out, and these areas are pretty
large, averaging about the size of one’s finger-nails.
I am rather inclined to think that these areas are
determined by the course of well-differentiated nerve-,
tracts, while the less-differentiated ones are probably
more like muslin in their mesh. But the only reason
why I resort to the supposition of nerve-tracts at all.
is because of the sudden blocking of contractile waves

60 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES ‘1876-

by section, and the fact that stimulus (tentacular)
waves very often continue to pass after the contractile
ones have been thus blocked.

I am sorry I made the ungallant mistake about
Miss Lawless, but I had no means of knowing. If I
had known I should not have written the letter, be-
cause I am almost sure the movements of the Medusa
were accidental, and my pointing out this source of
error may be discouraging to a lady observer.

I remember thinking you were too diffident about
the bloom, but I suppose that is the advantage of
experience ; it keeps one from forming too high hopes
at the first.

The rest of your letter contains glorious news.
Cohn, I suppose, is about the best man in Europe to
take up the subject, and although I cannot conceive
what else he can do than Frank has done already, it
is no doubt most desirable that his opinion should be
formed by working at the problems himself.

The other item about the effects of feeding Drosera
is really most important, and in particular about the
starch. I have heard the doubts you allude to
expressed in several quarters, but this will set them
all at rest. It was just the one thing required to cap
the work on insectivorous plants. What capital work
Frank is doing !

I have nothing in the way of ‘boasting’ to set
off against it. The year has been a very bad one for
jelly-fish, so that sometimes I have not been able
to work at them for several days at a time. The most
important new observation is perhaps the following.

Suppose a portion of Aurelia to be cut into the

o

1877 WORK ON MEDUSA 61

form of a pair of trousers, in such a way that a
ganglion, a, occupies the bottom of one of the legs.
Usually, of course, contractile waves starting from
a course along to 6, and thence round to c and
backwards to d. But in one specimen I observed
that every now and then the exact converse took
place—viz. the contractile wave starting at d to
course to c, b, and a. On now excising the
ganglion at a both sets of contractile waves ceased
—thus showing that even in the case where they
started from d it was the ganglion at a which
started them. This power on the part of Medusoid

Bie. 3.

ganglia to discharge their influence at a distance
from their own seat I have also observed in other
forms of section, and it affords the best kind of
evidence in favour of nerves.

On the days when I could get no jelly-fish I took
to starfish. I want, if possible, to make out the
fanctions of the sand-canal and the avicule; but as
yet I have only discovered the difficulties to be over-
come. I had intended to make a cell to cover the
calcareous plate at the end of the sand-canal, and to
fill the cell with dye, in order to test Siebold’s hypo-
thesis that the whole apparatus is a filter for the

62 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1876-

ambulacral system; but Providence seems to have
specially designed that no substance in creation
should. be adapted for sticking to the back of a starfish.

The avicule are very puzzling things. I am sure
Allen is wrong in his hypothesis of their function
being to remove parasitical growths; for, on the one
hand, parasites are swarming around them unheeded,
‘and on the other, they go snapping away apparently
at nothing.. It is more easy, however, to say what
they are not than what they are. —

I went a few days ago to see the vine. Itis now
five feet high and vigorous, but I believe spring is
the proper time for grafting.

“With best thanks for your ‘boasting’ and good
wishes, I remain very sincerely and most espe
‘fully yours,
Geo. J. Romanzs.

From C. Darwin, Esq.
Down: June 4.,

Sir Joseph Fayrer supplied me with cobra poison.
It is very precious, but I have no doubt that by
explaining your motive he would give you a little,

-and your best plan of applying would be through
Lauder Brunton.

Your letter has made me as proud and sonicated
as ten peacocks. Iam inclined to think that writing
against the bigots about vivisection is as hopeless as
stemming a torrent with a reed. Frank, who has
just come here, and who speaks with indignation on
the subject, takes an opposite line, and perhaps he is

1877 oS EMEVISECTION ©” 63

‘right ; anyhow he had the best of an argument with
me on the subject. By the way, I think Frank has
made a fine discovery, but I won’t say what, for fear it
should break down. It seems to me the Physiologists
are now in the position of a persecuted religious sect,
and they must grin and bear the persecution, however
~cruel and unjust, as well as they can.

~~ T shall be very glad to hear what you think about
Hackel; perhaps I have shamefully misrepresented
him. About the other subject (never mentioned to a
human being) I shall be glad to hear, but I fear that
-E-am a wretched bigot on the subject.’

Yours very sincerely,
. CHARLES Darwin.

The rest has done me much soot: We return on
the 10th. My daughter is certainly better a good
deal, but not up to her former poor standard.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

Dunskaith, Nigg, Ross-shire: June 11.

“We had a good laugh over some parts of your
letter. I have not, as ‘yet, had time to read any of
Hiickel’s book.

I am delighted to hear about the discovery, and
hope, if it turns out well, to have my stimulated
curiosity satisfied with regard to it. If it is as
interesting as the sbeerations about the seeds, people
will think Frank a very lucky fellow to hook so many

good fish i in such a short time.

1 Spiritualism.

64 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1876—

Not having heard his arguments about the article-
writing, I am still strongly of your opinion, and, being
besides ill able to afford any time just now, I shall
not bother with it. When I think that in this one
county (Ross, and still more in Cromarty) there are
more rabbits expressly bred every year for trapping
than could be vivisected in all the physiological
laboratories in Europe during the next thousand
years, it seems hopeless to reason with people who,
knowing such facts, expend all their energies in
straining at a wonderfully small gnat, while swallow-
ing, as an article of daily food, such an enormously
large camel.

From C. Darwin, Esq.

Down: August 10.

Dear Romanes,—When I wrote yesterday, I had
not received to-day’s ‘Nature,’ and I thought that
your lecture was finished. This final part is one of
the grandest essays which I ever read.

It was very foolish of me to demur to your lines
of conveyance like the threads in muslin, knowing how
you have considered the subject, but still I must confess
I cannot feel quite easy. Every one, I suppose, thinks
on what he has himself seen, and with Drosera, a bit
of meat put on any one gland on the disc causes all
the surrounding tentacles to bend to this point; and
here there can hardly be differentiated lines of convey-
ance. Itseems to me that the tentacles probably
bend to that point whence a molecular wave strikes
them, which passes through the cellular tissue with

1877 NERVES OF AURELIA 65

equal ease in all directions in this particular case.
But what a fine case that of the Aurelia is!
Forgive me for bothering you with another note.
Yours very sincerely,
C. Darwin.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.
Dunskaith, Ross-shire, N.B.: August 13, 1877.

I thought you had given me quite enough praise
in your first letter, but am not on that account the
less pleased at the high compliment you pay me
in the second one. The ending up was what the
people at the Institution’ seemed to like best.
Pray do not think that I have yet made up my
mind about the ‘muslin.’ On the contrary, the more
I work at the tissues of Aurelia the more puzzled I
become, so that I am thankful for all criticisms. If
Aurelia stood alone, I should be inclined to take your
view, and attribute blocking of contractile waves in
spiral strips, &c., to some accidental strain previously
suffered by the tissue at the area of blocking. But
the fact that in Tiaropsis the polypite is so quick and
precise in localising a needle prick, seems to show
that here there must be something more definite
in the way of conducting tissue than in Drosera,
although I confess it is most astonishing how precise
the localising function, as described by you, is in the
latter. In ‘Nature’ I did not express my doubts,
but it was because I feared there may yet turn out to
be a skeleton in the cupboard that I kept all these

* He had just lectured at the Royal Institution.

66 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1876=

more or less fishy deductions out of the R.S. papers.
Further work may perhaps make the matter more
certain one way or another. Possibly the microscope
may show something, and so I have asked Schiifer to
come down, who, as I know from experience, is what
spiritualists call ‘a sensitive ’—I mean he can see
ghosts of things where other people can’t. But still,
if he can make out anything in the jelly of Aurelia, I
shall confess it to be the best case of clairvoyance I
ever knew. :

I am very glad you have drawn my attention
prominently to the localising function in Drosera, as
i+ is very likely I have been too keen in my scent
after nerves ; and I believe it is chiefly by comparing
lines of work that in such novel phenomena truth is
to be got at. And this reminds me of an observation
which I think ought to be made on some of the
excitable plants. It is a fact not generally known,
even to professed physiologists, that if you pass a
constant current through an excised muscle two or
three times successively in the same direction, the
responses to make and break become much more
feeble than at first, so that unless you began with a
strong current for the first of the series, you have to
strengthen it for the third or fourth of the series in
order to procure a contraction. But on now reversing
the direction of the current, the muscle is tremen-
dously excitable for the first stimulation, less so for
the second, and so on. Now this rapidly exhausting
effect of passing the current successively in the same
direction, and the wonderful effect of reversing it,
point, I believe, to something very fundamental in

1877 BRITISH ASSOCIATION IN GLASGOW 67

the constitution of muscular tissue. The comple-
mentary effects in question are quite as decided in
the jelly-fish as in frog’s muscle; so I think it would
be very interesting to try the experiment on the
contractile tissues of plants. But there are so many
things to write about that I am afraid of ‘bothering
you, and this with much more reason that you can
have to be afraid of ‘ bothering’ me.

Aurelia is, as you say, ‘a fine case,’ and I often
wish you could see the experiments.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
; Gro. J. Romanss.

The leading Physiologists felt the importance of
co-operation and of alliance, and a society entitled
the Physiological Society was formed of which Mr.
Romanes and Professor Gerald Yeo were the first
honorary secretaries.

In 1876 Mr. Romanes made his first appearance
at the British Association ; he recounts his experiences
in the following letter.

To Miss C. H. Romanes.

British Association, Glasgow : Monday, 1876.

My dearest Puffin,—I have received all your
letters, and hada good laugh over them ; it is evident
that I must get back soon to pilot the way. We
shall indeed have a jolly time.

I have just got out from the section room, and my
work is over. I had a splendid audience both as to

number and quality.
F 2

68 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1876—

When I had finished, all the great guns had their
siy, Professor Hiackel leading off with a tremendous
eulogium on the work, laying special stress on the
great difficulty of conducting an inquiry of the kind,
and complimenting me highly on the success obtained.
Sanderson then made a long speech, and then
Stirling and Balfour, &e.

The latter stated it as his opinion that my
investigation is the most important that has as yet
been conducted in any department of invertebrate
physiology. The discussion was then cut short by the
president to leave time for the other papers, my own
exposition having taken so long. I replied briefly.

Shortly after this, Mr. Romanes delivered a lecture
on the Evidences of Organic Evolution, which he re-
printed in the ‘ Fortnightly,’ and afterwards worked up
into a little book called ‘The Scientific Evidences
of Organic Evolution.’ About this lecture Mr. Darwin
wrote :—

Down,

My dear Romanes,—I have just finished your
lecture. Itis an admirable scientific argument and
most powerful. I wish that it could be sown broad-
cast throughout the land. Your courage is marvellous,
and I wonder that you were not stoned on the spot.
And in Scotland! Do please tell me how it was
received in the Lecture Hall. About man being
made like a monkey (p. 37) is quite new to me; and
the argument in an earlier place on the law of
parsimony admirably put. Yes, p. 21 is new to me.
All strikes me as very clear, and considering small

1877 EVIDENCES OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 69

space you have chosen your lines of reasoning
excellently.
But I am tired, so good night!
C. Darwin.

The few last pages are awfully powerful in my
opinion.

Sunday Morning.—The above was written last
night in an enthusiasm of the moment, and now this
dark, dismal Sunday morning I fully agree with
what I said.

I am very sorry to hear about the failure in the
sraft experiments, and not from your own fault or
ill-luck. ‘Trollope, in one of his novels, gives us a
maxim of constant use by a brick-maker, ‘ It is dogged
as does it!’ and I have often and often thought
this is the motto for every scientific worker. I am
sure it is yours if you do not give up Pangenesis with
wicked imprecations. By the way, G. Jager has just
brought out in ‘Kosmos’ a chemical sort of Pange-
nesis, bearing chiefly on inheritance.

I cannot conceive why I have not otlfered my
garden for your experiments. I would attend to the
plants, as far as mere care goes, with pleasure, but

Down is an awkward place to reach.
C. D.

(Would it be worth while to try if the ‘ Fortnightly ’
would publish it ?)

To this Mr. Romanes replied:

70 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1877—

18 Cornwall Terrace : Dec. 2, 1877.

It was most kind of you to write me such a long
and glowing letter. In one way it is a good thing
that all the world are not so big-hearted as yourself
—it would make young men awfully conceited. Yet
I value your opinion more than the opinion of any-
body, because in other things I have always found
your judgment more deep and sound than anybody’s.
However, I will go to Huxley next Saturday for an
antidote, as it is quite true what he said about
himself at Cambridge, that he is not given to making
panegyrics.

On the whole, as I have said, I was surprised how
well it was taken. And still more so in Yorkshire
last week—where I was lecturing at Leeds and
Halifax on Meduse, and took occasion to wind up
about you and your degree. I was perfectly as-
tonished at the reception you got among such popular
audiences. What a change you have lived to see!
If ever human being had a right to ery ‘ Vict’—but
you know it all better than I do.

About the grafts, I thought it most natural that
you should not like the bother of having them done
at Down, when there are such a multitude of other
gardens belonging to do-nothing people. But as you
have mentioned it, I may suggest that in the case of
onions there is a difficulty in all the gardens I know
—viz., that they are more or less infested with onion
worms. If, therefore, you should know any part of
your garden where onions have not grown for some
years, I might do the grafts here in pots, and bring

1878 DEATH OF HIS SISTER 1

the promising ones to plant out at Down in May.
Seed could then be saved in the following autumn.
All the other plants could be grown in the other gar-
dens, and well attended to.

That is a very interesting letter in ‘ Nature.’
What do you think of Dr. Sanderson’s paper in the
same number, as to its philosophy and expression ? I
have sent a letter about animal psychology which I
think will interest you. —

With kind regards to all, I remain, very sincerely
and most respectfully (this is a bow which I specially
reserve for you, and would make it lower, but for the
fear of making myself ridiculous),

Gro. J. Romanes.

P.S.—I fear Mr. Morley would think my lecture too
long, and not original enough for the ‘ Fortnightly.’ ’

Early in the year 1878, a great sorrow fell on the
Romanes family. The elder of the two sisters,
Georgina, died in April, and to her brother, her junior
by two or three years, her loss was very great. She
was a briJhant musician, and had done much to pre- :
vent her young brother from becoming too entirely
absorbed in science, and in keeping alive in him the
passionate love for music which was always one of his
characteristics.

They went much together to concerts, and the
house was the centre of a good deal of musical society.
Among the many musicians who came and went may
be mentioned Gounod. He had a great admiration
and liking for Miss Romanes, and used to make her

1 It was subsequently published in the Fortnightly.

72 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878

sing to him. And also there was Dr. Joachim, who
with characteristic kindness came in the last days of
Georgina’s hfe and played, as only he can play, to her.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.
18 Cornwall Terrace : April 10, 1878.

Many thanks for your kind expressions of sym-
pathy. When the sad event occurred I had some
thoughts of sending you an announcement; but as
you had scarcely ever seen my sister, I afterwards felt
that you might think it superfiuous in me to let you
know.

The blow is indeed felt by us to be one of dire
severity, the more so because we only had about a
fortnight’s warning of its advent. My sister did not
pass through much suffering, but there was something
painfully pathetic about her death,not only because she
was so young and had always been so strong, but also
because the ties of affection by which she was bound
to us, and we to her, were more than ordinarily
tender. And when in her delirium she reverted to
the time when our positions were reversed, and when
by weeks and months of arduous heroism she saved
my life by constant nursing—upon my word it was
unbearable." The blank which her death has created
in our small family is very distressing. She always
used to be so proud of my work that I feel that half
the pleasure of working will now be gone—but I do
not know why I am running on lke this. Of course
it will give me every pleasure to go to Down before

1 He refers to the attack of typhoid fever in 1873.

1878 LECTURE ON ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE 73

leaving for Scotland. If you have no preference
about time, I suppose it would be best to go when
you return home in May, as the onions might possibly
be then ready for grafting. Unless, therefore, I hear
from you to the contrary, I shall write again some
time between the middle and end of May.

Then came a second appearance at the British
Association. Mr. Romanes was asked to deliver one
of the evening lectures at the meeting of 1878, which
took place at Dublin.

The subject was animal intelligence, and seems
to have excited a good deal ofattention. The follow-
ing letters relate to the lecture and to his book on
Animal Intelligence :

To C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: June 18.

Very many thanks for your permission to use your
observations, as well as for the additional information
which you have supplied. If all the manuscript chapter
on instinct is of the same quality as the enclosed por-
tion, it must be very valuable. Time will prevent me
from treating very fully of instinct in my lecture, but
when I come to write the book for the International
Science Series on Comparative Psychology, I shall
try to say all that I can on instinct. Your letter,
therefore, induces me to say that J hope your notes will
be published somewhere before my bock comes out
(7.e. within a year or so), or, if you have no intention
of publishing the notes, that you would, as you say, let
me read the manuscript, as the references, &c., would

TA GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878

be much more important for the purposes of the book
than for those of the lecture. But, of course, I should
not ask to publish your work in my book, unless you
have no intention of publishing it yourself. I do not
know why you have kept it so long unpublished, and
your having offered me the manuscript for preparing
my lecture makes me think that you might not
object to lending it me for preparing my book. But
please understand that I only think this on the sup-
position that, from its unsuitable length, isolated
character, or other reason, you do not see your way
to publishing the chapter yourself.

From C. Darwin, Esq.

Down: June 19.
My dear Romanes,—You are quite welcome to
have my longer chapter on instinct. It was abstracted
for the Origin. I have never had time to work it up
in a state fit for publication, and it is so much more
interesting to observe than to write. It is very un-
hkely that I should ever find time to prepare my
several long chapters for publication, as the material
collected since the publication of the Origin has been
so enormous. But I have sometimes thought that
when incapacitated for observing, I would look over
my manuscripts, and see whether any deserved publi-
cation. You are, therefore, heartily welcome to use
it, and should you desire to do so at any time, inform

me and it shall be sent.
Yours very sinerely,
CuarLes Darwin.

1878 MR. DARWIN’S NOTES ON INSTINCT 75

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace: June 21, 1878

I am of course very glad to hear that you have no
objection to letting me have the benefit of consulting
your notes.

Most observers are in a frantic hurry to publish
their work, but what you say about your own feelings
seems to me very characteristic. Like the bees, you
ought to have some one to take the honey, when you
make it to give to the world—not, however, that I
want to play the part of a thieving wasp. I willsend
you my manuscript about instinct (or the proofs
when out), and you can strike out anything that you
would rather publish yourself.

T shall not be able to begin my book till after the
jelly-fish season is over. This will be in September
or October; but I will let you know when I want to
read up about instinct.

With very many thanks, I remain, yours nery
sincerely and most respectfully,

Gro. J. Romans.

The Palace, Dublin: August 17, 1878.

Your letter and enclosure about the geese arrived
the day after I left Dunskaith, but have been forwarded
here, which accounts for my delay in answering, for
I only arrived in Dublin a few days ago.

I am sorry to hear about the onions, and can only
quote the beatitude which is particularly applicable

76 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878

to a worker in science, Blessed is he that expecteth
nothing, for he shall not be disappointed.

But I am still more sorry to hear of your feeling
knocked up. I meet your son here, who tells me
about you.

Yesterday was the evening of my big lecture, and
I send you a copy as well as a newspaper account.
(The latter was in type before delivery, and so no
‘applauses,’ &c. are put in.) The thing was a most
enormous success, far surpassing my utmost expecta-
tions. JI had a number of jokes which do not appear
in the printed lecture, and I never saw an audience
laugh somuch. The applause also was really extra-
ordinary, especially at some places, and most of all
at the mention of your name at the grand finale.
In fact, it was here tremendous, and a most impres-
sive sight to see such a multitude of people so enthu-
silastic. I expected an outburst, but the loud and
long-continued cheering beat anything that ever I
heard before. I do not know whether your son was
there, but if so he will tell you.

Hooker, Huxley, Allen, and Sir W. Thomson,
Flower, D. Galton, and a lot of other good men were
present, and had nothing but praise to give, Captain
Galton going so far as to say that it was the most
successful lecture he had ever heard. So Iam quite
conceited.

Ever your devoted worshipper,
Gzo. J. Romanzs

1878 LECTURE ON ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE 17

From C. Darwin, Esq.
August 20, 1878.

My dear Romanes,—I am most heartily glad that
your lecture (just received and read) has been so
eminently successful. You have indeed passed a
most magnificent eulogium on me, and I wonder
that you were not afraid of hearing ‘Oh! oh!’ or
some other sign of disapprobation. Many persons
think that what I have done in science has been
much overrated, and I very often think so myself;
but my comfort is that I have never consciously done
anything to gain applause. Enough and too much
about my dear self. The sole fault that I find with
your lecture is that it is too short, and this is a rare
fault. It strikes me as admirably clear and interest-
ing. I meant to have remonstrated that you had
not discussed sufficiently the necessity of signs for
the formation of abstract ideas of any complexity,
and then I came on to the discussion on deaf mutes.
This latter seems to me one of the richest of all the
mines, and is worth working carefully for years and
very deeply. I should like to read whole chapters
on this one head, and others on the minds of the
higher idiots. Nothing can be better, as it seems to
me, than your several lines or sources of evidence,
and the manner in which you have arranged the
whole subject. Your book will assuredly be worth
years of hard labour, and stick to your subject. By
the way, | was pleased at your discussing the selec-
tion of varying instincts or mental tendencies, for I

78 ‘GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878

have often been disappointed by no one ever having
noticed this notion.

I have just finished La Psychologie, son présent
et son avemr, 1876, by Delbeuf (a mathematician
and physicist of Belgium), in about one hundred
pages; it has interested me a good deal, but why I
hardly know; it is rather like Herbert Spencer ; if
you do not know it, and would care to see it, send
me a post-card.

Thank Heaven we return home on Thursday, and
I shall be able to go on with my humdrum work,
and that makes me forget my daily discomfort.

Have you ever thought of keeping a young
monkey,’ so as to observe its mind? At a house
where we have been staying there were Sir A. and
Lady Hobhouse, not long ago returned from India,
and she and he kept three young monkeys, and told
me some curious particulars. One was that the
monkey was very fond of looking through her eye-
class at objects, and moved the glass nearer and
further so as to vary the focus. This struck me, as
Frank’s son, nearly two years old (and we think
much of his intellect!), is very fond of looking
through my pocket lens, and I have quite in vain
endeavoured to teach him not to put the glass close
down on the object, but he will alwaysdo so. There-
fore I conclude that a child just under two years is
inferior in intellect to a monkey.

Once again I heartily congratulate you on your

1 Mr. Romanes carried out this suggestion, or rather his sister, Miss

C. E. Romanes, did; she kept a monkey for observation for several months,
as 1s recorded at p. 484 of ‘ Animal Intelligence.’

1878 THE LECTURE AT DUBLIN 79

well-earned present and I feel assured grand future
success.
Yours very truly,
Cu. Darwin.

P.S. 28th.—Can you spare time to come down
here any day this week, except Saturday, to dine and
sleep here? We should be very glad indeed if you
can come. If so, I would suggest your leaving
Charing Cross by the 4.12 train, and we would send
a carriage to Orpington to meet you, and send you
back next morning. In this case let us have a line
fixing your day. It will be dull for you, for none of.
my sons except Frank are at home.

The extraordinary modesty, the absolute sim-
plicity, the fatherly kindness, which breathe in this
letter, cannot but give some idea of what Mr. Darwin
was and why he was so much loved.

Dunskaith, Ross-shire: August 29, 1878.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—I only returned here yes-
terday and found your letter awaiting me.

Your letter has made me as com | as Punch, al
as you have such a good opinion of the line of work,
I think I shall adopt your plan of working up the
subject well before I publish the book. The greatest
difficulty I had in writing the lecture was to make it
short enough, but it will be splendid to be able to
spread oneself over the whole subject in a book. I
was at one time in doubt whether it would be better
to spend time over this subject or over something

80 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878

more purely physiological, but of late I had begun to
incline towards the former, and your opinion has now
settled mine.

I have not previously heard of the book by the
Belgian physicist, and should much like to readit. I
have already such a number of your books that I fear
you must sometimes miss them; but I can return any
of them at a minute’s notice.

I had thought of keeping a monkey and teaching
its young ideas how to shoot, and wrote to Frank
Buckland for his advice as to the best kind to get,
but he has never answered my letter. The case
about the lens is a capital one.

I have such a host of letters to answer, which
have accumulated during my absence, that I must
make this a short one. Your ‘ congratulations’ are
of more value to me than any of the others, and I
thank you for them much.

Ever your devoted disciple,
Gro. J. RoMAnss.

_ P.S.—Science is not a world where a man need
trouble himself about getting more credit than is due.

From C. Darwin.
Down: Sept. 2, 1878.
My dear Romanes,— Many thanks for your letter.
I am delighted to hear that you mean to work the
comparative psychology well. I thought your letter
to the ‘Times’ very good indeed. Bartlett, at the
Zoological Gardens, I feel sure, would advise you

1878 THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH 81

infinitely better about hardiness, intellect, price, &c.,
of monkeys than F. Buckland, but with him it
must be viva voce.
Frank says you ought to keep an idiot, a deaf
mute, a monkey, and a baby in your house !
Ever yours sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

Dunskaith, Ross-shire, N.B.: Sept. 10, 1878.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—Having been away for a
week’s deer-stalking in the hills, I have only to-day
received your letter together with the book. Thank
you very much for both, and also for the hints about
Espinas and Bartlett. I am glad you thought well
of the letter to the ‘Times.’ Ina book I shall be able
to make more evident what I mean.

Frank’s idea of ‘a happy family’ is a very good
one; but I think my mother would begin to wish
that my scientific inquiries had taken some other
direction.

The baby too, I fear, would stand a poor chance
of showing itself the fittest in the struggle for exist-
ence.

Iam now going to write my concluding paper on
Meduse, also to try some experiments on luminosity
of marine animals.

Hyver sincerely and most respectfully yours,

Gro. J. Romanzs.

In addition to other scientific and purely philo-
sophical work, Mr. Romanes had, even while writing
his Burney Prize, entered on that period of conflict

G

§2 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878

between faith and scepticism which grew more and
more strenuous, more painful, as the years went on,
which never really ceased until within a few weeks
of his death, and which was destined to end in a
chastened, a purified, and a victorious faith. His
was a religious nature, keenly alive to religious
emotion, profoundly influenced by Christian ideals,
by Christian modes of thought. As time went on he
felt, like all philosophically minded men, the impossi-
bility of a purely materialistic position, and as he
pondered on the final, ultimate mysteries, on’ ‘ God,
Immortality, Duty,’ he arrived very slowly, very
painfully, but very surely, at the Christian position.

But these years were, to him and to many, years
of peculiar and of extraordinary difficulty. Roughly
speaking, the time between 1860 and 1880 was a time
of great perplexity to those who wished to adhere to
the faith of Christendom.

It is impossible to exaggerate the influence which
Mr. Darwin’s great work has had on every depart-
ment of science, of literature, and also of art.
Thirty-six years have passed away since the publica-
tion of the ‘ Origin of Species,’ and we have lived to
see that again tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in
allis. Now we see that a man can fully accept the
doctrine of evolution, and yet can also believe in a
personal God and in the doctrines which logically
follow on such a belief. But it was not so at first.
T’o many on both sides the new teaching seemed to
threaten destruction to Theism, at least to Theism as
understood either by Newman or by Martineau.

Again, in philosophy Herbert Spencer seemed to
many to have constructed a lasting system of philo-

1 Cf. F. Myers’s ‘ Essay on George Eliot,’ Modern Essays, p. 269.

1878 THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH 83

sophy, a system sufficient to account for all things in
heaven, in earth, and under the earth. And German
criticism seemed to many to be rapidly destroying
the credibility of the early documents of Christianity.

Many a noble soul made shipwreck of its faith,
nor is this disaster wonderful. For popular theology
had made many unwise, many untenable claims, and
the ground had to be cleared before the battle could
be fought out on its real issues. There were some
who, amidst all the strife of tongues, kept their heads,
remembered bygone storms, and did not lose their
courage, their whole-heartedness, but they were few,
and were not over much heard or heeded.’ For the
most part, those on the Christian side adopted the
line taken by the Bishop of Oxford in his review of
Mr. Darwin’s ‘ Origin of Species’ in the ‘ Quarterly
Review,’ and in his famous speech at Oxford during
the British Association of 1860.

Certainly the outlook now is more encouraging
than it was twenty years ago.

It has been well and eloquently said by one than
whom none is more qualified to speak on this subject: ”
‘It is quite certain that this scientific obstacle has
been, in the main, removed. In part, it has been
through the theologians abandoning false claims, and
learning, if somewhat unwillingly, that they have no
“ Bible revelation’ in matters of science; in part, it
has been through its becoming continually more
apparent, that the limits of scientific “‘explanation ”’ of
nature are soon reached; that the ultimate causes,
forces, conditions of nature are as unexplained as

1 Cf. ‘ Life and Letters of Dean Church,’ p, 154.
* «Buying up the Opportunity,’ a sermon by the Rev. C. Gore,
preached before the University of Oxford, and published by the S.P.C.K,

62

S4 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878

ever, or rather postulate as ever for their explanation
a Divinemind. ‘Thus, if one “ argument from design”’
was destroyed, another was only brought into pro-
minence. No account which science can give, by
discovery or conjecture, of the method of creation,
can ever weaken the argument which hes from the
universality of law, order, and beauty in the universe
to the universality of mind. The mind of man looks
forth into nature, and finds nowhere unintelligible
chance, but everywhere an order, a system, a law, a
beauty, which corresponds, as greater to less, to his
own rational and spiritual intuitions, methods, and
expectations. Universal order, intelligibility, beauty,
mean that something akin to the human spirit,
something of which the human spirit is an offshoot
and a reflection, is in the universe before it is in
man.

‘Or, again, a prolonged period of controversy and
reflection has resulted in making it fairly apparent
that no scientific doctrine or conjecture about the
dim origins of the spiritual life of man can affect
the argument from its development and persistence.
It has developed and persisted, as one of the most
prominent features of human life, solely on the
postulate of God. And is it not out of analogy with
all that science teaches us to imagine that so impor-
tant, continuous, and universal a development of
human faculty could have arisen and persisted unless
it were in correspondence with reality ?

‘In fact we may almost say that the obstacles to
belief on the side of science were gone when once it
was admitted that God Who has revealed to us His
nature and ours, and made this revelation in part
through an historical process and in the literature of
a nation, has yet, and for obvious reasons, given us

1878 THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH 85

no revelation at all on matters which fall within the
domain of scientific research.

‘A similar removal of obstacles must be claimed
in the region of historical criticism. There, again,
it has become apparent that. whatever turns out true
about this or that Old Testament narrative, no
question really vital to the Christian religion can be
said to be at stake in this field; while in the region
of the New Testament the most sifting criticism has
had a result emphatically reassuring. The critical
evidence justifies, or more than justifies, the belief of
the Church which is expressed in her Creeds.’

But this has been a hard-won fight for most—

‘Friends, companions, and train
The avalanche swept from our side,’ ?

and no one felt the strain, the positive agony of soul,
in greater degree than did George Romanes. Step
by step he abandoned the position he had maintained
in his Burney Prize, with no great pauses, rather, as
it seems, with startling rapidity, and with sad and with
reluctant backward glances he took up a position of
agnosticism, for a time almost of materialism. He
wrote a book, published in 1876, which was entitled
‘A Candid Examination of Theism.’ It is almost
needless to discuss the work, as it has been dealt
with by its author in his posthumous ‘Thoughts on
Religion.’ It is an able piece of work, and is
marked throughout by a lofty spirit, a profound sad-
ness, and a belief (which years after he criticised
sharply) in the exclusive light of the scientific method
in the Court of Reason.

His education had been on strictly scientific

1 ‘Rugby Chapel,’ M. Arnold.

86 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878

lines, and the limitations of thought produced by such
education are clearly seen in that essay; ‘ limita-
tions’ which the philosophical and the metaphysical
tendencies of his mind soon led him to overstep.

The reaction against the conclusions of the essay
set in far sooner than has been at all suspected.
Perhaps the first published mark of reaction is the
Rede Lecture! of 1885.

Yet anyone who reads carefully the conclusion ot
the ‘Candid Examination’ will see the note of ‘long-
ing and thirsting for God.’

And forasmuch as I am far from being able to
agree with those who affirm that the twilight doctriue
of the ‘new faith’ 1s a desirable substitute for the
waning splendour of ‘the old,’ Iam not ashamed to
confess that with this virtual negation of God the
universe to me has lost its soul of loveliness; and
although from henceforth the precept to ‘ work while
it is day’ will doubtless but gain an intensified force
from the terribly intensified meaning of the words
that ‘the night cometh when no man can work,’
vet when at times I think, as think at times I must,
of the appalling contrast beween the hallowed glory
of that creed which once was mine, and the lonely
mystery of existence as now I find it, at such times
I shall ever feel it impossible to avoid the sharpest
pang of which my nature is susceptible. For whether
it be due to my intelligence not being sufficiently
advanced to meet the requirements of the age, or
whether it be due to the memory of those sacred asso-
ciations which to me at least were the sweetest that
life has given, I cannot but feel that for me, and for
others who think as I do, there is a dreadful truth in
those words of Hamilton, philosophy having become
a meditation not merely of death but of annihilation,

1 Now republished in a book called ‘ Mind and Motion,’

1878 ' - THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH 87

the precept know thyself has become transformed into
the terrific oracle to Gidipus—

‘Mayest thou ne’er know the truth of what thou art.’

There are many who abandon belief for various
reasons, and who in various methods stifle regret and
call in stoicism to their aid. ‘There are those who
really care very little about the ‘ultimate problems,’
and who find the world of sense quite enough to
occupy them. And there are souls who seem to be con-
stantly crying out in their darkness for light, the bur-
den of whose cry seems to be: ‘ Fecisti nos ad te, Domine,
et nquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te.’
Theselast have within them the capacity for holiness,
thecapacity for a real and tremendous power to witness
for the truth, to do and to suffer pro causa Dev. To
this class George Romanes belonged. Bynature he was
deeply and truly religious, and interested and absorbed
as he was in science, it is no exaggeration to say he was
just as keenly interested in theology, that is to say,
in the deepest and ultimate problems of theology.
By the questions which divide Christians he was not
greatly attracted, and he never could see any reason
for the bitterness which exists between e.g. Roman
and Anglican.

This is anticipating. In 1878 he had touched the
very depths of scepticism, and he would have rejected
the idea of a possibility of return, and would have
rejected it in terms of unmeasured regret.

A letter from Mr. Darwin is interesting.

Down: December 5, 1878.
My dear Romanes,—I am much pleased to send
my photograph to the future Mrs. Romanes.
I have read your anonymous book—some parts
twice over—with very great interest ; it seems admir-

88 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878=

ably, and here and there very eloquently written but
from not understanding metaphysical terms I could
not always follow you. For the sake of outsiders, if
there is another edition, could you make it clear what
is the difference between treating a subject under
a ‘scientific,’ ‘logical,’ ‘symbolical,’ and ‘ formal’
point of views or manner? With regard to your
great leading idea, I should lke sometimes to hear
from you verbally (for to answer would be too long
for letters) what you would say if a theologian
addressed you as follows :

‘I grant you the attraction of gravity, persistence
of force (or conservation of energy), and one kind of
matter, though the latter is an immense admission ;
but I maintain that God must have given such
attributes to this force, independently of its persist-
ence, that under certain conditions it develops or
changes into light, heat, electricity, galvanism, per-
haps even life.

‘You cannot prove that force (which physicists
define as that which causes motion) would inevitably
thus change its character under the above conditions.
Again I maintain that matter, though it may in the
future be eternal, was created by God with the most
marvellous affinities, leading to complex definite
compounds and with polarities leading to beautiful
crystals, &c. &c. You cannot prove that matter would
necessarily possess these attributes. Therefore you
have no right to say that you have “ demonstrated ”’
that all natural laws necessarily follow from gravity,
the persistence of force, and existence of matter. If
you say that nebulous matter existed aboriginally
and from eternity with all its present complex powers

1879 TH ECLIPSE OF FAITH 89

in a potential state, you seem to me to beg the whole
question.’

Please observe it is not I, but a theologian who
has thus addressed you, but I could not answer him.
In your present ‘idiotic’ state of mind, you will wish
me at the devil for bothering you.’

Yours very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park: Sunday, Dec. 1878.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—Many thanks for your
portrait—not only from myself but also from the
‘future Mrs. Romanes.’

IT am glad that you think well of the literary style
of the book on Theism. As regards the remarks
of the supposed theologian, I have no doubt that he
is entitled to them. ‘The only question is whether I
have been successful in making out that all natural
cases must reasonably be supposed to follow from the
conservation of energy. If so, as the transmutations
- of energy from heat to electricity &c. all take place
in accordance with law, and as the phenomena of
polarity in crystals &c. do the same, it follows that
neither these nor any other class of phenomena
afford any better evidence of Deity than do any other
class of phenomena. Therefore, if all laws follow
from the persistence of force, the question of Deity
or no Deity would simply become the question as. to
whether force requires to be created or is self-existent.
And if we say it is created, the fact of self-existence
still requires to be met in the Creator.

1 He was engaged to be married.

90 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1878—

Of course it may be denied that all laws do follow
from the persistence of force. And this is what I
mean by the distinction between a scientific and a
logical proof. For in the last resort all scientific
proof goes upon the assumption that energy is per-
manent, so that if from this assumption all natural
laws and processes admit of being deduced, it follows
that for a scientific cosmology no further assumption
is required ; all the phenomena of Nature receive their
last or ultimate scventific explanation in this the most
ultimate of scientific hypotheses. But now logic
may come in and say, ‘ This hypothesis of the persist-
ence of force is no doubt verified and found constantly
true within the range of science (7.e. experience), so
that thus far it is not only an hypothesis but a fact.
But before logic can consent to allow this ultimate
fact of science to be made the ultimate basis of all
cosmology, I must be shown that it zs ultimate, not
merely in relation to human modes of research, but
also in a sense absolute to all else.’

But the more I think about the whole thing the
more am I convinced that you put it into a nutshell
when you were here, and that there is about as much
use in trying to illuminate the subject with the light
of intellect as there would be in trying to illuminate
the midnight sky with a candle. I intend, therefore,
to drop it, and to take the advice of the poet, ‘ Be-
lieve it not, regret it not, but wait it out, O Man.’

Gide

I return the papers, having taken down the re-
ferences. The books I shall return when read, but
honey-mooning may prolong the time.

1879 - THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH- 91

The following letter is interesting, as it shows the
beginning of that long and painful reaction against
scepticism which was to last so many years. There
is a curious anticipation of a passage in ‘ Thoughts on
Religion.’

To Mrs. Burdon Sanderson.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park: Nov. 26.

Dear Mrs. Sanderson,—Many thanks for your kind
and warm congratulations. . . . Iam glad you wrote
a ‘sermonising’ letter, because it gives me the oppor-
tunity of saying that I fully agree with all the opinions
which you express, and, further, that I have already
found love to modify logic, or perhaps I should rather
say, to vivify logic. . . . In the course of my previous
speculations I have kept much too rigidly to the lines
of intellect as distinguished from feeling. Indeed, I
always did so on principle, supposing that reason was
the only instrument which was to be accredited with
any authority in the matter, and that the dictates
of feeling should be met with a firm front of oppo-
sition. ... In this fundamental supposition I was
wrong, seeing that, on the supposition of Christianity
being true, it must be considered as an appeal to the
whole of human nature, and not to reason alone. I
have often met this argument in various forms before,
but never before seen its rational justification. I can-
didly do not believe that love has had any influence
in blinding my logic, but rather that love has shed
upon my logic a new light. I see now that Faraday
was rationally justified in his view, and some day
I intend to write a treatise supplementary to my
‘Theism’ in order to show clearly how this is so.

92: GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1879—.

CHAPTER II

LONDON, 1879-1890

Mr. Romanes married, on February 11, 1879, Ethel,
only daughter of Andrew Duncan, Esq., of Liverpool,
whom he had met at the house cf her cousin and
cuardian, Sir James Malcolm, of Balbedie and Grange,
Fifeshire. In the same year he was elected a Fellow
of the Royal Society.

From 1879 to 1890 Mr. Romanes resided in 18
Cornwall Terrace, which his mother gave up to him,
and these eleven years were perhaps the brightest and
most fruitful of his life.

It is difficult to give any just idea of the extreme
happiness and pleasantness of the home life and of
outward circumstances ; happiness which only seemed
to increase as years went on. He grew more boyish,
more playful, and seemed to have an endless capacity
for enjoyment, for friendship, for happiness of the
best and purest kind.

He greatly enjoyed society, and had full oppor-
tunities for seeing the kind he liked best, the cream
of the intellectual world of London, and perhaps one
may be allowed to say that no one was ever more
unspoilt by success, by popularity. He seemed to
grow more simple, more single-hearted each year.

-1880 SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY 93

The amount of work he did was very considerable.
His books, ‘ Animal Intelligence,’ ‘ Mental Evolution
in Animals,’ ‘ Mental Evolution in Man,’ ‘ Jelly-Fish
and Star-Fish,’ ‘ Darwin and after Darwin,’ ‘ An Exa-
mination of Weismannism,’ represent an enormous
amount of reading and thought ; and besides all these,
there was experimental work in University College
and in his own laboratory in Scotland, and a succes-
sion of important articles in reviews, chiefly the
‘Nineteenth Century,’ ‘ Fortnightly ’ and ‘ Contempo-
rary’ Reviews, and ‘ Nature.’ He was elected to the
Fellowship of the Royal Scciety in 1879.

It would be quite absurd to deny that Mr.
Romanes liked a fair and free fight, and there was a
good deal of scientific controversy, but he was abso-
lutely incapable of anything but fairness, and never
imported into private life any quarrel in print. He
had plenty of stiff fights, chiefly with Mr. Thiselton-
Dyer, Professor Lankester, and Mr. Wallace, but the
first two were always his friends, and with the latter
he had a very slight acquaintance. The following
letter, though it belongs to a later date, will show his
feelings on the subject of controversy :

Christ Church, Oxford.

Dear Professor Meldola,—I trust that our differ-
ences—and disagreements—as presented in ‘ Nature,’
will not disturb our relations in private. Anyhow, I
send the inclosed circular, which I am addressing to
English biologists, and hope you will testify to your
desire for ‘ facts’ by signing the memorial.

Yours truly,
Gro. J. Romanes.

94 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1879—

He lectured a good deal in provincial towns, and
cave several Friday evening discourses at the Royal
Institution. Lecturing, even in days of failing health,
was always a pleasure, never a burden to him. In
one of the following letters is a mock triumphant
description of a lecture in Glasgow, written purely to
amuse his wife, and provoke some mock depreciatory
remarks.

To Mrs. Romanes.

Edinburgh: November 1880.

In the evening I went to Professor ’s dinner,
which was a most gorgeous affair. The feed was
sumptuous, and the guests the best that Edinburgh
had to afford. There were twelve of us, all except
myself and Hullah (the musician), professors of the
University. I sat next to one of the latter—
Turner, who, as his handsome namesake might say,
has done original work. The advantage of meeting
celebrated men when oneself is also a celebrated man
(how sweet is self-contentment!) is that the two
know all about each other before they meet, and
so meet as friends already. Turner is a man of great
general intelligence, and as it is needless to tell
you that Romanes is the same, of course they got on
delightfully. In proof of which he asked me to go
with him next day to see the new hospital and
medical schools, which, when finished, are to be the
largest in the world and cost nearly half a million
of money. We agreed that he should call for me at
ten, which he did to-day. We two then drove to the
buildings, and, between exploring them and the old

1880 - LECTURE IN GLASGOW 95:

University, he spent more than two hours of his,
at this time of year, very valuable time. From
which you may gather that he is a particularly
pleasant man.

Glasgow: 188U.

Now for my news. Everything was splendid,
much the best thing in the way of lecturing that I
have done since Dublin,’ and I was so sorry that you
were not there.

First of all we had a dinner given by my host in
my honour, the guests being all the chief men in the
University, including Professor Caird ? and the biggest
of all big swells, Sir W. Thomson.’

The dinner was to me highly interesting, as I
talked nearly all the time to Sir William, who is a
wonderful psychological study.

We then went to the lecture, where Sir William
took the chair, and introduced me to the audience
with such a glowing oration that it would have
startled you. (It quite astonished me.) The au-
dience being thus led to suppose that I was one of
the brightest of all bright lights, received me very
warily ; I got enthusiastic, discarded my notes, and
swam along in the most magnificent style even for
me, which, you know, is the highest praise I can
bestow upon myself. I spoke for an hour anda half;
at the end the people applauded so, I felt really
awiully sorry you were not there. There seems to be
a cruel fate preventing you from witnessing my per-
formances.

! The Brit. Assoc. Lecture, 1878.
* The present Master of Balliol. > Now Lord Kelvin.

96 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1880—

The vote of thanks was proposed by Professor
McKendrick. I was met by another storm of ap-
plause ; I began to feel quite overcome. But I said
a few words with all becoming humility, and then
Sir William summed up.

Gateshead: November 1880.

My news since yesterday is interesting. Mr.
Newall is Newall the astronomer, who has the tele-
scope of world-wide renown—in fact, the largest
telescope in the world. It is mounted just outside
the house in a large dome-hke building, and looks
like a small tower set horizontally on no end of
wheels and machinery. Yesterday night was, un-
fortunately, smoky. . . . I do hope and pray there
may be some stars visible to-night, as I should dearly
hke to see something through the monster. It is
such an irony of fate that the largest telescope in the
world should be mounted in the smokiest place in
the world. Mr. Newall himself is very nice, with
something about his appearance and manner which
faintly reminds me of Darwin... .

My lectures went off very well of course! The
dinner at the Logans was delightful. Bob?' was there,
and kept the table in roars. He certainly is a genius
at telling a story. Carrie’ was there also. She is
charming, and sings and plays delightfully. There
is a peculiar sweetness about her singing, or, as Bob
calls it, warbling, which gives one the same kind of
pleasure as listening to a skylark does.

1 His cousin, Major Romanes, King’s Own Borderers.
* Another cousin, Mrs. T. M. Murray.

1881 WORK ON MARINE ZOOLOGY 97

Here is an affectionate outburst to his mother,
written about this time:
‘When thou art feeble, old, and grey,

My healthy arm shall be thy stay,
My mother.’

When. But you are not yet either so feeble, old,
or grey as to make me imagine that you have lost a
needful prop in the absence of your ‘peerless son!’
And I am sure you are not more proud of him than
he is of you. With your eyes as bright as the bright
starlight, and your face as ruddy as the morning, I
am glad you are my mother.

In 1881 Mr. Romanes was at Garvock, Perth-
shire. And he was for a short time also at Oban,
working with his friend Professor Ewart on Echino-
dermata, and their joint paper was made the ‘ Croonian
Lecture.’ !

This was the last bit of work on marine zoology,
excepting a trifling research on the smelling power
of anemones, at which he worked with Mr. Walter
Herries Pollock, who had been tempted to make a
temporary excursion from the paths of literature into
the walks of science. They contributed a joint paper
to the Linnean Society on indications of smell in
Actinia, and it is greatly to be feared, such is the
frivolity of literary men, that Mr. Pollock regarded
the whole affair as a very good joke.

The following letters describe the work of the
years 1880 and 1881. The summer of 1879 and
1880 had been spent at Westfield.

* His book entitled ‘ Jelly-Fish, Star-Fish, »nd Sea Urchins,’ gives a
full account of Mr. Romanes’ researches on these primitive nervous systems.

H

98 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1880—

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

By this post I return you Hiackel’s essay on
Perigenesis. Although I have kept it so long, I have
only just read it, as you said there was no need to
return it at any particular time. ;

To me it seems that whatever merit Hickel’s
views may have in this matter, they certainly have
no claim to be regarded as original; for I cannot see
that his ‘ Plastidules’ differ in anything but in name
from Spencer’s ‘ Physiological Units.’ Why he does
not acknowledge this, it is difficult to understand.
Anyhow, the theories being the same, the same
objections apply; and to me it has always seemed
that this theory is unsatisfactory because so general.
As you observe in your letter, everyone believes in
molecular movements of some kind; but to offer this
as a full explanation of heredity seems to me like
saying that the cause, say, of an obscure disease like
diabetes, is the persistence of force. No doubt this is
the ultimate cause, but the pathologist requires some
more proximate causes if his science is to be of any
value. Similarly, I do not see that biology gains
anything by a theory which is really but little better
than a restatement of the mystery of heredity in
terms of the highest abstraction. Pangenesis at
least has the merit of supplying us with some con-
ceivable carriers, so to speak, of the modified pro-
toplasm from the various organs or parts of the parent
to the corresponding organs or parts of the offspring,
and the multiplication of gemmules seems to me to

1881 PANGENESIS AND PERIGENESIS 99

avoid a difficulty with which Perigenesis (as stated by
Hiackel) is beset, viz. that atavism sometimes occurs
over too large a gap to be reasonably attributed to
what remains of the original ‘ stem-vibrations’ after
their characters have been successively modified at
each ‘bifurcation.’ But it would be tedious to enter
into details. Perigenesis, in my opinion, is ‘more
simple’ than Pangenesis, only because its terms are
so much more general.

P.S.—I forgot to tell you, when we were at lunch,
that the seed of the grafted beets is ready for sowing ;
also that the vine is now four feet high, and so, I
should think, might be grafted next spring.

From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes.
Down: February 3, 1880.

I will keep your diagram! for a few days, but I
find it very difficult now to think over new subjects,
so that it is not likely that I shall be able to send
any criticisms ; but you may rely on it that I will do
my best.

Iam glad you like Guthrie’s book. If you care
to read a little book on pure instinct, get Fabre,
‘Souvenirs Entomologiques,’ 1879. It is really admir-
able, and very good on the sense of direction in insects.
I have sent him some suggestions such as rotating
the insects, but I do not know whether he will try
them.

Yours very sincerely,
CuarLes Darwin.

1 Diagram for a lecture on ‘ Mental Evolution.’
H 2

100 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1880—

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

February 6, 1880.

I have to thank you very much for your two
letters, and also for the enclosures from , which
I now return. The latter convey exactly the criti-
cism that I should have expected from , for while
writing my essay on Theism I had several con-
versations with him upon the subject of Spencer’s
writings, and so know exactly what he thinks of
them. But in none of these conversations could I
get at anything more definite than is conveyed by the
returned letters. In no point of any importance did
he make it clear to me that Spencer was wrong, and
the only result of our conversation was to show me
that in opinion it was only my ignorance of
mathematics that prevented me from seeing that Mr.
Spencer is merely a ‘ word philosopher.’ Upon which
opinion I reflected, and still reflect, that the mathema-
ticlans must be a singularly happy race, seeing that
they alone of men are competent to think about the
facts of the cosmos. And this reflection becomes
still more startling when supplemented by another,
viz. that although one may not know any mathema-
tics, everybody knows what mathematics are: they
are the sciences of number and measurement, and as
such, one is at a loss to perceive why they should be
so essentially necessary to enable a man to think
fairly and well upon other subjects. But it is, as you
once said, that when a man is to be killed by the
sword mathematical, he must not have the satisfac-

1881 ON MENTAL EVOLUTION 101

tion of even knowing how he is killed. Of course, in
a general way I quite understand and agree witl
that Spencer has done but little service to
science. But I believe that he has done great
service to thinking, and all the mathematicians in the
world would not convince me to the contrary, even
though they should all deliver their judgment with
the magnificent authority of a ——.

Coming now to the diagram, I am much obliged
to you for your suggestions. The ‘ Descent of Man,’
with all its references upon the subject, and also
your paper on the ‘ Baby,’ were read, and the results
embodied in the diagram, so I am very glad you did
not take the needless trouble of consulting these
works. By ‘Love’ I intend to denote the complex
emotion (dependent on the representative faculties)
which, having been so lately smitten myself, I am
perhaps inclined to place in too exalted a position.
But you did not observe that I placed ‘ Parental Affec-
tion ’ and ‘ Social Feeling’ very much lower down.

In my essay I carefully explain the two cases
of Drosera and Dionza as being the best hitherto
observed for my purpose in establishing the prin-
ciple of discrimination among stimuli, as a principle
displayed by non-nervous tissues.

April 22, 1880. _

As soon as I received your first intimation about
Schneider’s book I wrote over for it, and received a
copy some weeks ago. I then lent it to Sully, who
wanted to read it, so do not yet know what it is
worth. I, together with my wife—who reads French

102 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1880-

much more quickly than I can—am now engaged
upon all the French books on animal intelligence
which you kindly lent me. I am also preparing for
my Royal Institution lecture on the 7th of May. I
will afterwards publish it in some of the magazines,
and, last of all, in an expanded and more detailed
form, it will go into my book on Animal Intelligence.

I went to see the other day on Spiritualism.
He answered privately a letter that I wrote to
‘Nature,’ signed ‘F.R.S.,’ which was a feeler for
some material to investigate. I had never spoken
to before, but although I passed a very
pleasant afternoon with him, I did not learn any-
thing new about Spiritualism. He seemed to me to
have the faculty of deglutition too well developed.
Thus, for instance, he seemed rather queer on the
subject of astrology! and when I asked whether he
thought it worthy of common sense to imagine that,
spirits or no spirits, the conjunctions of planets could
exercise any causative influence on the destinies of
children born under them, he answered that having
already ‘swallowed so much,’ he did not know where
to stop!!

My wife and baby are both flourishing. I noticed
that the latter, at four days old, could always tell
which hand I touched, inclining its head towards
that hand.

From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.
September 14, 1880.
We send you our best thanks for your magnificent
present of game. I have not tasted black-game for

1881 SHOOTING 1N SCOTLAND 103

nearly half a century, when I killed some on my
father-in-law’s land in Staffordshire.

I hope that you are well and strong and do not
sive up all your time to shooting. Pray tell Mrs.
Romanes, if you turn idle, I shall say it is her fault,
and being an old man, shall scold her. But you
have done too splendid work to turn idle, so I need
not fear, and shall never have audaciously to scold
Mrs. Romanes. But I am writing great rubbish.
You refer to some Zoological station on your coast,
and I now remember seeing something about it, and
that more money was wanted for apparatus, there-
fore I send a cheque of 5/. 5s. just to show my
goodwill.

Yours very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

We went to the Lakes for three weeks to Conis-
ton, and the scenery gave me more pleasure than I
thought my soul, or whatever remains of it, was
capable of feeling. We saw Ruskin several times,
and he was uncommonly pleasant.

To C. Darwin, Esq.
November 5, 1880.

I was sorry to hear on my return from Scotland
that I had missed the pleasure of a call from you,
and also to hear from Mr. Teesdale to-day that you
had returned to Down, owing, he fears, to the alarm-
ing condition of Miss Wedgwood. I trust, however,
that her state of health may not be so serious as he
apprehends.

104 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1830—

On my way South I stayed for a couple of days
at Newcastle, to give two lectures on Mental Evolu-
tion, and hence my absence when you called. I
stayed with Mr. Newall, who has the monster tele-
scope, and ‘as good luck would have it, Providence
was on my side,’ in the matter of giving us a clear
sky for observing, rather a rare thing at Newcastle.

You will be glad to hear that our season’s work
at the ‘ Zoological station’ has been very successful.
A really interesting research has been conducted by
Ewart and myself jointly on the locomotor system ol
Echinoderms, he taking the morphological and I the
physiological part. When next I see you I shall tel!
you the principal points, but to do so in a letter
would be tedious.

I think it is probable that Mivart and I shall
have a magazine battle some day on Mental Evolu-
tion, as I think it is better to draw him in this way
before finally discussing the whole subject in my
book.

18 Cornwall Terrace: November 138, 1880.

Tain grieved to hear from Mr. Teesdale that his
fears were only too well founded. Although I had
not myself the privilege of Miss Wedgwood’s ac-
quaintance, I know, from what I have been told by
those who had, how greatly your household must feel
her loss.

I should not, however, have written only to trouble
you with expressions of sympathy. I desire to ask
you one or two questions with reference to an article
on Hybridism which I have written for the ‘ Ency-
clopedia Britannica,’ and the corrected proof of which

1881 AUTHORITIES ON HYBRIDISM 105

Isend. It isin chief part an epitome of your own
chapters upon the subject, and therefore you need not
trouble to read the whole, unless you care to see
whether I have been sufficiently clear and accurate.
But there are two points on which I should like to
have your opinion, both for my own benefit and for
that of my readers. First, I think it is desirable to
append a list of the more important works bearing
upon the subject, and if I make such a list I should
not like to trust to my own information, lest I should
do unwitting injustice to some observing writers. _ If,
therefore, you could, without taking any special trouble,
jot down from memory the works you think most
deserving of mention, I think it would be of benefit
to the reading public.

From C. Darwin, Esq.
Down: November 14, 1880.

My dear Romanes,—Many thanks for your kind
sympathy. My wife’s sister was, I fully believe, as
good and generous a@ woman as ever walked this
earth.

The proof-sheets have not arrived, but probably
will to-morrow. I shall like to read them, though
I may not be able to do so very quickly, as I am
bothered with a heap of little jobs which must be done.
I will send by to-day’s post a large book by Focke,
received a week or two ago, on Hybrids, and which I
have not had time to look at, but which I see in
Table of Contents includes full history of subject and
much else besides. It will aid you far better than I

106 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1880—

can; for I have now been so long attending to other
subjects, and with old age, I fear I could make no
suggestions worth anything. Formerly I knew the
subject well.

Kolreuter, Giirtner, and Herbert are certainly far
the most trustworthy authorities. There was also a
German, whose name I mention in ‘Origin,’ who
wrote on Hybrid Willows. Naudin, who is often
quoted, I have much less confidence in. By the way,
Nageli (whom many think the greatest botanist in
Germany) wrote a few years ago on Hybridism; I
cannot remember title, but I will hunt for it if you
wish. ‘The title will be sure to be in Focke.

I quite agree with what you say about Passiflora.
Herbert observed an analogous case in Crinum. |

November 15, 1880.

I have just read your article. As far as my judg-
ment goes it is excellent and could not be improved.
You have skimmed the cream off the whole subject.
It is also very clear. One or two sentences near the
beginning seem rather too strong, as I have marked
with pencil, without attending tostyle. I have made
one or two small suggestions. If you can find my
account in ‘ Nature’ (last summer I think)! about
the hybrid Chinese geese [being fertile] inter se, it
would be worth adding, and would require only two
or three lines. I do not suppose you wish to add,
but in my paper on Lythrum, and I think requoted
in ‘Var. under Dom.’ vol. ii. 2nd edit. bottom of

1 See Nature, vol. xxi. p. 207.

1881 RESEARCH ON ECHINODERMS 107

page 167, I have a good sentence about a man
finding two vars. of Lythrum, and testing them by
fertility, and coming to egregiously wrong conclu-
sion.

I think your idea of reference to best books and
‘short history of subject good. By the way, you have
made me quite proud of my chapter on Hybridism, I
had utterly forgotten how good it appears when dressed
up in your article. Yours very sincerely,

CHARLES Darwin.

I have had a hunt and found my little article on
Geese, which please hereafter return.

To C. Darwin, Esq.
18 Cornwall Terrace: November 18, 1880.

Very many thanks for your kind assistance and
expressions of approval. It was stupid of me to for-
get your article in ‘ Nature’ about the geese. I now
quite well remember reading it when it came out.

Focke’s book is just the very thing I wanted, as
it supplies such a complete history of the subject. If
I do not hear from you again, I shall keep it for a
few days to refer to when the proof which I have
sent to press shall be returned with my historical
sketch added.

I have now nearly finished my paper on the
physiology of the locomotor system in Echinoderms.
The most important result in it is the proof, both
morphological and physiological, of a nervous plexus,
external to everything, which in Hchinus serves

108 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 188)

to co-ordinate spines, feet, and pedicellarie in a
wonderful manner. By the way, I remember once
talking with you about the function of the latter,
and thinking it mysterious. There is no doubt now
that this function is to seize bits of seaweed, and
hold them steady till the sucking feet have time to
establish their adhesions, so assisting locomotion of
animal when crawling about seaweed-covered rocks,

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: December 10, 1880.

I return by this post the book on Hybridism,
with many thanks. It has been of great use to me
in giving an abstract of the history.

I have read your own book with an amount of
pleasure that I cannot express.

One idea occurred to me with reference to lumi-
nous stimulation, which, if it has not already occurred
to you, would be well worth trying. The suggestion
suggests itself. How about the period of latent stimu-
lation in these non-nervous and yet irritable tissues ?
And especially with reference to luminous stimulation
it would be most interesting to ascertain whether the
tissues are affected by brief flashes of light. If you
had an apparatus to give bright electrical sparks in a
dark room, and were to expose one of your plants to
flashes of timed intervals between each other, you
might ascertain, first, whether any number of sparks
in any length of time would affect the plants at all ;
and second, if so, what number in a given time. I
should not wonder (from some of my experiments on

1s81 ##FLASHING LIGHT ON PLANT TISSUES 109

Meduse, see ‘ Phil. Trans.’ vol. clxvii. pt. 11. pp. 683-4)
if it would turn out that a continuous uninterrupted
series of sparks, however bright, would produce no
effect at all, owing to the plant tissues being too slug-
gsish to admit of being affected by a succession of
stimuli each of such brief duration. Butifany effect
were produced, it would still be interesting to make
out whether this interrupted source of flashing light
were considerably less effective than a continuous
source of the same intensity.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Gro. J. Romans.

Linnean Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, W.:
December 14, 1880.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—I am glad that you think
the experiment worth trying. As you say you have
not got the requisite apparatus for trying it, I have
written to Professor T'yndall to see if he would allow
it to be carried through at the Royal Institution.

If I had known you were in town I should have
called to tell you about the Echinoderms. My paper
on them is now written (70 pages), so I have begun
to come here (Burlington House) to read up syste-
matically all the literature I can find on animal
intelligence. Hence it is that, having left your letter
at home, and not remembering the address upon it, I
have to send this answer to Down.
is a lunatic beneath all contempt—an
object of pity were it not for his vein of malice.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Gro. J. Romanss.

110 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1880-

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: December 17, 1880.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—Just a line to let you
know that Professor Tyndall has kindly placed at my
disposal the apparatus required to conduct the ex-
periment with flashing light.

Frank’s papers at the Linnean were, as you will
probably have heard from other sources, a most
brilhant success, as not only was the attendance
enormously large and the interest great, but his ex-
position was a masterpiece of scientific reasoning,
rendered with a choice and fluency of language that
were really charming. I knew, of course, that he is
a very clever fellow, but I did not know that he could
do that sort of thing so well.

I have now got a monkey. Sclater let me
choose one from the Zoo, and it is a very intelligent,
affectionate little animal. I wanted to keep it in the
nursery for purposes of comparison, but the proposal
met with so much opposition that I had to give way.
I am afraid to suggest the idiot, lest I should Pe told
to occupy the nursery myself.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Gro. J. Romans.

Down, Beckenham, Kent: January 24.

My dear Romanes,—I have been thinking about
Pompilius and its allies. Please take the trouble to
read on ‘ Perforation of the Corolla by Bees,’ p. 425 of
my Cross Fertilisation to end of chapter. Bees show
so much intelligence in their acts, that it seems not
improbable to me that the progenitors of Pompilius

1881 ON TRANSMITTED MEMORY 111

originally stung caterpillars and spiders, &c., In any
part of their bodies, and then observed by their in-
telligence that if they stung them in one particular
place, as between certain segments on the lower side,
their prey was at once paralysed. It does not seem
to me at all incredible that this action should thus
become instinctive, z7.e. memory transmitted from one
generation to another. It does not seem necessary
to suppose that when Pompilius stung its prey in the
ganglion that it intended or knew that the prey would
long keep alive. The development of the larve may
have been subsequently modified in relation to their
half-dead instead of wholly dead prey, supposing
that the prey was at first quite killed, which would
have required much stinging. Turn this notion
over in your mind, but do not trouble yourselt by
answering.
Yours very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

N.B. Once on a time a fool said to himself
that at an ancient period small soft crabs or other
creatures stuck to certain fishes; these struggled
violently, and in doing so, discharged electricity,
which annoyed the parasites, so that they often
wriggled away. The fish was very glad, and some
of its children gradually profited in a higher degree
and in various ways by discharging more electricity
and by not struggling. The fool who thought thus
persuaded another fool to try an eel in Scotland, and
lo and behold electricity was discharged when it
struggled violently. He then placed in contact with

112 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881

the fish, or near it, a small medusa or other animal
which he cleverly knew was sensitive to electricity,
and when the eel struggled violently, the little animals
in contact showed by their movements that they felt
a slight shock. Ever afterwards men said that the
two fools were not such big fools as they seemed

to be. STULTUS.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: Sunday, March 1881.

I have got a lot of cats waiting for me at different
houses round Wimbledon Common, and some day
next week shall surprise our coachman by making a
round of calls upon the cats, drive them several miles
into the country, and then let them out of their re-
spective bags. If any return, I shall try them again
in other directions before finally trying the rotation
experiment.

I am also getting the experiment on flashing light
agoing. ‘The first apparatus did not answer, so now
I have invested in a large eight-day clock, the pen-
dulum of which I intend to make do the flashing.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: March 24, 1881.

I write to ask you what you think of the following
idea as to a possible method of attacking Pangenesis.
Why not, I mean, inarch, at an early period of their
growth, the seed-vessels or ovaries of plants belong-
ing to different varieties? If adhesion takes place,
the ovary might then be severed from its parent
plant, and left to develop upon the foreign one.

1881 PANGENESIS 1Ui16;

Tf you think this a possible experiment, now
would be the time of year to tryit. Therefore I write
to ask whether you do think it possible, and if so, what
plants you may think it would be best to try it with..

All the cats' I have hitherto let out of their
respective bags have shown themselves exceedingly
stupid, not one having found her way back.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Gro. J. Romanss.

From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes.
Down, Beckenham, Kent: March 26, 188].

You are very plucky about Pangenesis, and I
much wish that you could have any success. I do
not understand your scheme. Do you intend to
operate on an ovarium with a single ovule, and to
bisect it after being fertilised? I should fear that
this was quite hopeless. If you intend to operate on
ovaria with many seeds, whether before or after
fertilisation, I do not see how you could possibly
distinguish any effect from the union of the two
ovaria. Any operation before fertilisation would, I
presume, quite prevent the act; for very few flowers
can be fertilised if the stem is cut and placed in
water. Girtner, however, says, that some Liliacez
can be fertilised under these circumstances.

If Hooker is correct, he found that cutting off or

1 Mr. Romanes used to describe with much amusement the ludicrous
nature of the experiment as seen by passers-by. He drove in a cab well
into the country, released the cats, and mounted the roof of the cab in
order to get a good view of the cats speeding away in different directions.

I

114 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881

making a hole into the summit of the ovarium and
then inserting pollen caused the fertilisation of the
ovules. This has always stretched my belief to the
cracking point. I think he has published a notice
on this experiment, but forget where, and I think it
was on ‘Papaver.’ Dyer could probably tell you
about it. Perhaps your plan is to remove one half of
the ovarium of a one-seeded plant and join it on to
the ovary of another of a distinct var., with its ovule
removed; but this would be a frightfully difficult
operation.

I am very sorry to hear about your ill success
with cats, and I wish you could get some detailed
account of the Belgium trials.

Yours very sincerely,
C. Darwin.

April 16, 1881.

My manuscript on Worms has been sent to
printers, so I am going to amuse myself by scribbling
to you on a few points; but you must not waste
your time in answering at any length this scribble.
Firstly, your letter on intelligence was very useful
to me, and I tore up and rewrote what I sent you.
I have not attempted to define intelligence, but have
quoted your remarks on experience, and have shown
how far they apply to worms. It seems to me, that
they must be said to work with some intelligence,
anyhow, they are not guided by a blind instinct.

Secondly, I was greatly interested by the abstract
in ‘ Nature’ of your work on Echinoderms ; the com-
plexity, with simplicity, and witb such curious co-

1881 DR. ROUX’S BOOK 115

ordination of the nervous system, is marvellous ; and
you showed me before what splendid gymnastic feats
they can perform.

Thirdly, Dr. Roux has sent me a book just
published by him, ‘Der Kampf der Theile,’ &c.,
1881 (240 pages in length). He is manifestly a well-
read physiologist and pathologist, and from his
position a good anatomist. It is full of reasoning,
and this in German is very difficult to me, so that
I have only skimmed through each page, here and
there reading with a little more care. As far as I
can wperfectly judge, it is the most important book
on evolution which has appeared for some time. I
believe that G. H. Lewes hinted at the same funda-
mental idea, viz. that there is a struggle going on
within every organism between the organic molecules,
the cells, and the organs. I think that his basis is
that every cell which best performs its function is as
a consequence at the same time best nourished and
best propagates its kind. The book does not touch on
mental phenomena, but there is much discussion on
rudimentary or atrophied parts, to which subject you
formerly attended. Nowif you would like to read this
book, I will send it after Frank has glanced at it, for
I do not think he will have time to read it with care.
If you read it and are struck with it (but I may be
wholly mistaken about its value), you would do «
public service by analysing and criticising it in
‘Nature.’ Dr. Roux makes, I think, a gigantic over-
sight in never considering plants; these would
simplify the problem for him.

Fourthly, I do not know whether you will discuss

an 2

116 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881

in your book on the ‘Mind of Animals’ any of the
more complex and wonderful instincts. It is un-
satisfactory work, as there can be no fossilised in-
stincts, and the sole guide is their state in other
members of the same order and mere probability. But
if you do discuss any (and it will perhaps be expected
of you) I should think that you could not select a better
case than that of the sand-wasps, which paralyse their
prey, as formerly described by Fabre in his wonderful
paper in ‘ Annales des Sciences,’ and since amplified
in his admirable ‘Souvenirs.’ Whilst reading this
latter book, I speculated a little on the subject.
Astonishing nonsense is often spoken of the sand-
wasp’s knowledge of anatomy. Now will anyone say
that the Gauchos on the plains of La Plata have
such knowledge, yet I have often seen them prick a
struggling and lassoed cow on the ground with un-
erring skill, which no mere anatomist could imitate.
The pointed knife was infallibly driven in between
the vertebre by a single slight thrust. I presume
that the art was first discovered by chance, and that
each young Gaucho sees exactly how the others do
it, and then with a very little practice learning
the art. Now I suppose that the sand-wasps
originally merely killed their prey by stinging them
in many places (see p. 129 of Fabre, ‘Souvenirs,’ and
page 241), on the lower and softer side of the body,
and that to sting a certain segment was found by far
the most successful method, and was inherited, like
the tendency of a bull-dog to pin the nose of a bull,
or of a ferret to bite the cerebellum. It would not be
a very great step in advance to prick the ganglion of

1881 WORK ON ECHINODERMS sy

its prey only slightly, and thus to give its larve fresh
meat instead of old dry meat. Though Fabre insists
so strongly on the unvarying character of instinct,
yet it shows that there is some variability, as on
pps (6, 177%.

I fear that I shall have utterly wearied you with
my scribbling and bad handwriting.

My dear Romanes,
Yours very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: April 17, 1881.

Your long letter has been most refreshing to me
in every way.

I am looking forward with keen interest to the
appearance of your book on Worms, and am unex-
pectedly glad to hear that my letter was of any use.

I should very much like to see the book you
mention, and from what you say about sending
it I shall not order it. But there is no need to send
it soon, as I have already an accumulation of books
to review for ‘ Nature.’

I am very glad that you think well of the Echino-
derm work. Several other experiments have occurred
to me to try, and I hope to be able to do so next
autumn, as also the interesting experiment suggested
by Frank of rotating by clockwork (as you did the
plants) an Echinus inverted upon its aboral pole, to
see whether it would right itself when the influence
of gravity is removed.

118 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881

No doubt I must in my second book deal with
instincts of all kinds, complex or otherwise. Your
‘speculations’ on the sand-wasp seem to me very
pithy—excuse the pun suggested by the analogy of
the cattle—and I think there can be little doubt that
such is the direction in which the explanation is to
be sought. I also think that the difficulty is mitigated
by the consideration that both the ganglion of the
spider and the sting of the wasp are organs situated
on the median line of their respective possessors, and
therefore that the origin of the instinct may have been
determined or assisted by the mere anatomical form
of the animals—the wasp not stinging till securely
mounted on the spider’s back, and when so mounted
the sting might naturally strike the ganglion. But
I have not yet read Fabre’s own account, so this
view may not hold. Anyhow, and whatever de-
termining conditions as to origin may have been, it
seems to me there can be little doubt that natural
selection would have developed it in the way you
suggest.

I have now grown a number of seeds exposed tu
the flashing light, but am not yet quite sure as to the
result. About one seedling out of ten bends towards
the flashing source very decidedly, while all the rest,
although exposed to just the same conditions, grow
pertectly straight. But I shall, no doubt, find out
the reason of this by further trials. It is strange
that the same thing happens when I expose other
seedlings to constant light of exceedingly dim in-
tensity. It looks as if some individuals were more

1881 FLASHING LIGHT ON PLANTS - 119

sensitive to light than others. I do not know
whether you found any evidence of this.

I have just found that this year again I have
been too late in asking them to send me cuttings of
the vine for grafting. I did not ‘now that the sap
in vines began to run so early.

I remain ever yours, very sincerely and most

respectiully, Gro. J. RoMAngs.

From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes.
Down: April 18, 1881.

IT am extremely glad of your success with the
flashing light. If plants are acted on by light, like
some of the lower animals, there is an additional
point of interest, as it seems to me, in your results.
Most botanists believe that light causes a plant to
bend to it in as direct a manner as light affects
nitrate of silver.

I believe that it merely tells the plant to which
side to bend, and I see indications of this belief
prevailing even with Sachs. Now it might be
expected that light would act on a plant in some-
thing the same manner as on the lower animals. As
you are at work on this subject, I will call your
attention to another point. Wiesner, of Vienna (who
has lately published a good book on Heliotropism)
finds that an intermittent light during 20 m. produces
same effect as a continuous light of same briliancy
during 60m. So that Van Tieghem, in the first part
of his book, which has just appeared, remarks, the
light during 40 m. out of the 60 m. produced no effect.

120 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881-

I observed an analogous case described in my book.
Wiesner and Tieghem seem to think that this is
explained by calling the whole process ‘induction,’
borrowing a term used by some physico-chemists (of
whom I believe Roscoe is one), and implying an
agency which does not produce any effect for some
time, and continues its effect for some time after the
cause has ceased. I believe (?) that photographic
paper is an instance. I must ask Leonard whether
an interrupted light acts on it in the same manner
as ona plant. At present I must still believe in my
explanation that it is the contrast between light and
darkness which excites a plant.

I have forgotten my main object in writing, viz.
to say that I believe (and have so stated) that seedlings
vary much in their sensitiveness to light; but I did
not prove this, for there are many difficulties, whether
time of incipient curvature or amount of curvature
is taken as the criterion. Moreover, they vary
according to age and perhaps from vigour of growth ;
and there seems inherent variability, as Strasburger
(whom I quote) found with spores. If the curious
anomaly observed by you is due to varying sensitive-
ness, ought not all the seedlings to bend if the flashes
were at longer intervals of time? According to my
notion of contrast between light and darkness being
the stimulus, I should expect that if flashes were
made sufficiently slow it would be a powerful stimulus,
and that you would suddenly arrive at a period when
the result would suddenly become great. On the
other hand, as far as my experience goes, what one
expects rarely happens.

1882 FLASHING LIGHT ON PLANTS 121

I heartily wish you success, and remain, yours

ever very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

Do you read the ‘Times’? As I had a fair
opportunity, I sent a letter to the ‘ Times’ on Vivi-
section, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to
bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a
manner on all physiologists.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.
18 Cornwall Terrace: April 22.

T have left your last letter so long unanswered in
order that I might be able to let you know the result
of the next experiment I was trying on the seeds with
flashing light. I think in the end the conclusion
will be that short flashes, such as I am now using,
influence the seedlings, but only to a comparatively
small degree, so that it is only the more sensitive
seedlings that perceive them.

Your letter in the ‘Times’ was in every way
admirable, and coming from you will produce more
effect than it could from anybody else. The answer
to-day to is also first-rate—just enough with-
out being too much. It would have been a great
mistake to have descended into a controversy. I
thought had more wit than to adopt such a
tack and tone, and am sure that all physiologists will
be for ever grateful to you for such a trenchant
expression of opinion.

I have a little piece of gossip to tell. Yesterday

122 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

the Council of the Linnean nominated me Zoological
Secretary, and some of the members having: pressed
me to accept, I have accepted. I also hear that your
son is to be on the same Council, and that Sir
John Lubbock is to be the new President.

I have at length decided on the arrangement of
my material for the books on Animal Intelligence
and Mental Evolution. I shall reserve all the heavier
parts of theoretical discussion for the second book—
making the first the chief repository of facts, with
only a slender network of theory to bind them into
mutual relation, and save the book as much as
possible from the danger that you suggested of being
too much matter-of-fact. It will be an advantage to
have the facts in a form to admit of brief reference
when discussing the heavier philosophy in the second
book, which will be the more important, though the
less popular, of the two.

Just then some correspondence had been going
on in the ‘Times’ on the subject of Vivisection, and
Mr. Darwin wrote to Mr. Romanes as follows :—

Down, Beckenham, Kent: April 25, 1881.

My dear Romanes,—I was very glad to read your
last notes with much news interesting tome. But I
write now to say how I, and indeed all of us in the
house, have admired your letter in the ‘Times.’* It
was so simple and direct. I was particularly glad
about Burdon Sanderson, of whom I have been for
several years a great admirer. I was, also, especi-

1 A letter written at the end of April 1881.

1882 MR. DARWIN’S PORTRAIT 123

ally glad to read the last sentences. I have been
bothered with several letters, but none abusive.
Under a selfish point of view I am very glad of the
publication of your letter, as I was at first inclined to
think that I had done mischief by stirring up the
mud, now I feel sure that I have done good. ....

The following letters relate to the portrait oi
Mr. Darwin which was painted by the Hon. John
Collier for the Linnean Society.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: May 25.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—When at the Linnean this
afternoon, I was told by Dr. M that he had
obtained your consent to sit for a portrait for the
Society. Now, as it appears to me a great favour to
ask of you to sit for yet another portrait, the least we
can do, if you consent, is to employ a thoroughly
good man to paint it. Therefore, if you have not
already entered into any definite agreement, I write
to suggest a little delay (say of a month), when, as
Secretary, I might ascertain the amount of the sub-
scription on which we might rely, and arrange matters
accordingly. John Collier (Huxley’s son-in-law) told
me some time ago that he would dearly like to have
you to paint, and I doubt not that he would do it
at less than his ordinary charges if necessary. He
would be sure to do the work well, and so I write to
ascertain whether you would not prefer him, or some
other artist of known ability, to do the work, if I
were to undertake to provide the needful.

Please give to Mrs. Darwin, and take to yourself,

124 GHEORGHE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

our best thanks for your kind congratulations on the
opportune arrival of another baby—just in time to be
worked into the book on Mental Evolution. Every-
thing is going well.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Gro. J. Romans.

To C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: July 1.

I have told Collier that he had now better write
to you direct at whatever time he intends to make his
final arrangements with you as to place and time of
sitting. He has just finished a portrait of me, which
my mother had painted as a present to my wife. It
is exceedingly good, and as all his recent portraits are
the same—notably one of Huxley—I am very glad
that he is to paint you. JBesides, he is such a
pleasant man to talk to, that the sittings are not so
tedious as they would be with a less intelligent
man.

I shall certainly read the ‘Creed of Science’ as
soon as I can. The German book on Evolution I
have not yet looked at, as I have been giving all my
time to my own book. This is now finished. But
talking of my time, I do not see how the two or three
hours which I have spent in arranging to have a
portrait, which will be of so much historical im-
portance, taken by a competent artist, could well have
been better employed.

You will see that I have got into a row with
Carpenter over the thought-reading. Everybody

1882" BOOKS ON MENTAL EVOLUTION 125

thinks he made a mistake in lending himself to
Bishop’s design of posing as a scientific wonder.
Bishop is a very sly dog, and has played his cards
passing well. In an article which he published two
years ago in an American newspaper, he explains the
philosophy of advertising, and says the first thing to
attend to is to catch good names. He has now suc-
ceeded well.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Gro. J. RoManss.

. Down: August 7.

My dear Romanes,—I received yesterday the en-
closed notice, and I send it to you, as I have thought
that if you notice Dr. Roux’s book in ‘ Nature’ or
elsewhere the review might possibly be of use to you.
As far as I can judge the book ought to be brought
before English naturalists. You will have heard from
Collier that he has finished my picture. All my
family who have seen it think it the best likeness
which has been taken of me, and, as far as I can judge,
this seems true. Collier was the most considerate,
kind, and pleasant painter a sitter could desire.

My dear Romanes,
Yours very sincerely,
Cu. Darwin.

To C. Darwin, Esq.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: August 8, 1881.

Many thanks for the notice of Roux’s book. I
have not yet looked at the latter, but Preyer, of Jena

196 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

(who has been our guest during the Congress meeting,}
and who knows the author), does not think much of it.

I am delighted that the portrait has pleased those
who are the best judges. I saw it the day it came
up, and feel no doubt at all that itis far and away the
best of the three. But I did not like to write and
venture this opinion till I knew what you all thought
of it.

I have been very busy this past week with the
affairs of the Congress in relation to Vivisection. It
has been resolved by the Physiological Section to get
a vote of the whole Congress upon the subject, and I
had to prepare the resolution and get the signatures
of all the vice-presidents of the Congress, presidents
and vice-presidents of sections, and to arrange for its
being put to the vote of the whole Congress at its
last general meeting to-morrow. The only refusal
to sign came appropriately enough from the president
of the section ‘ Mental Diseases.’

We leave for Scotland to-morrow, when I shall
hope to get time to read Roux’s book, though I shall
first review ‘ The Student’s Darwin.’

I remain, very sincerely and most respectfully

ee Gro. J. RoMANEs.

The following letters relate to the burning question
of Vivisection :—

Garvock, Perthshire: August 31, 1881.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—It is not often that I write
to dun you, and I am sorry that duty should now

1 International Medical Congress.

1882 VIVISECTION 127

impose on me the task of doing so, but I have no
alternative, as you shall immediately see.

The Physiological Society was formed, as you may
remember, for the purpose of obtaining combined
action among physiologists on the subject of Vivi-
section. The result in the first instance was to
resolve on a tentative policy of silence, with the view
of seeing whether the agitation would not burn itself
out. It is now thought that this policy has been
tried sufficiently long, and that we are losing ground
by continuing it. After much deliberation, there-
fore, the society has resolved to speak out upon the
subject, and the ‘ Nineteenth Century’ has been in-
volved as the medium of publication. Arrangements
have been made with Knowles for a symposium-like
series of short essays by all the leaders of biology and
medicine in this country—each to write on a branch
of the subject chosen by himself or allotted to him by
the society. In this matter of organising the con-
tributions, the society is to be represented by Dr. Pye
Smith, who combines science, medicine, and literary
culture better than any other member of our body.

_ As secretary I am directed to write to all the men
whose names are mentioned in a resolution passed by
the society in accordance with the report of a com-
mittee appointed by the society to consider the sub-
ject. Hence these tears.

Of course, your name in this matter is one of the
most important, and as the idea is to get a body of
sreat names, it would be a disappointment of no small
magnitude if yours should fail. It does not matter
so much that you should write a long dissertation, so

128 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 18S1—

Jong as you allow yourself to stand among this noble
army of martyrs. ‘Two or three pages of the ‘ Nine-
teenth Century ’ on one, say, of the following topics
would be all that we should want :—

‘The limits and safeguards desirable in carrying
on scientific experiments on animals.’

‘Mistaken humanity of the agitation: real
humanity of vivisection.’

‘The Royal Commission and its report.’

Or any other topic connected with Vivisection on
which you may feel the spirit most to move you to
write.

Any further information that you may desire I
shall be happy to give; but please remember how
much your assistance is desired.

This is a very delightful place, though not very
conducive to work. If any of your sons are in Scot-
land and should care for a few days’ sport with other
scientific men on the spree, please tell them that they
will find open house and welcome here.

The proofs of my book on Animal Intelligence
are coming in. I hope your work on Worms will
be out in time for me to mention it and its main
results.

Ewart has pitched his zoological laboratory at
Oban, so as to be as near this as possible. I shall go
down when I can to keep his pot of sea-eggs upon
the boil.

I remain, very sincerely and most respectfully
yours,

Gzo. J. Romangs,

1882 MR. DARWIN ON VIVISECTION 129

Down, Beckenham, Kent: September 2, 1881.

My dear Romanes,—Your letter has perplexed me
beyond all measure. I fully recognise the duty of
everyone, whose opinion is worth anything, expressing
his opinion publicly on vivisection, and this made me
send my letter to the ‘Times.’ I have been thinking
at intervals all morning what I could say, and it is the
simple truth that I have nothing worth saying. You,
and men like you, whose ideas flow freely, and who can
express them easily, cannot understand the state of
mental paralysis in which I find myself. Whatis most
wanted is a careful and accurate attempt to show what
physiology has already done for man, and even still
more strongly what there is every reason to believe it
will hereafter do. Now Iam absolutely incapable of
doing this, or of discussing the other points suggested
by you.

If you wish for my name (and I should be glad
that it should appear with that of others in the same
cause), could you not quote some sentence from my
letter in the ‘ Times,’ which I inclose, but please return
it ? If you thought fit you might say that you quoted
it with my approval, and that, after still further re-
flection, I still abide most strongly in my expressed
conviction. For Heaven’s sake, do think of this; I
do not grudge the labour and thought, but I could
write nothing worth anyone’s reading.

Allow me to demur to your calling your conjoint
article a ‘symposium,’ strictly a ‘drinking-party ;’
this seems to me very bad taste, and I do hope every-
one of you will avoid any semblance of a joke on the

K

150 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881-

subject. I know that words like a joke on this sub-
ject have quite disgusted some persons not at all
inimical to physiology. One person lamented to me
that Mr. Simon, in his truly admirable address at the
Medical Congress (by far the best thing which I have
read), spoke of the ‘fantastic sensuality’* (or some such
term) of the many mistaken, but honest men and
women who are half mad on the subject.

Do pray try and let me escape, and quote my letter,
which in some respects is more valuable, as giving my
independent judgment before the Medical Congress.
I really cannot imagine what I could say.

I will now turn to another subject : my little book
on Worms has been long finished, but Murray was so
strongly opposed to publishing it at the dead season,
that I yielded. I have told the printers to send you
a set of clean sheets, which you can afterwards have
stitched together. There is hardly anything in it
which can interest you.

Two or three papers by Hermann Miiller have just
appeared in ‘ Kosmos,’ which seem to me interesting, as
showing how soon, he after how many attempts, bees
learn how best to suck a new flower; there is also a
good and laudatory review of Dr. Roux. I could lend
you ‘ Kosmos’ if you think fit.

You will perhaps have seen that my poor dear
brother Erasmus has just died, and he was buried
yesterday here at Down.

Garvock, Bridge of Earn, Perthshire: September 4.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—I hasten to relieve your
mind about writing on vivisection, as I am sure that

1 See ‘ Life &e. of C. Darwin,’ vol. iii. p. 210.

1882 ON BEES 131

none of the physiologists would desire you to do so if
youfeelita bother. After all, there are plenty of other
men to do the writing, and if some of them quote the
marked sentences in your letter (which I return), with
the statement that you still adhere to them, the chief
thing will be done—viz. showing again and emphati-
cally on which side you are.

It is not intended to call the article a ‘ Symposium.’
I only used this word to show that they are to
be of the same composite kind as those which the
‘Nineteenth Century’ previously published under
this designation.

Your letter gives me the first news of your brother’s
death. Iremember very well seeing him one day when
I called on you at his house. It must make you very
sad, and I am sorry to have written you at such a time.

I have already sent in a short review of Roux’s
book, but should like to see about the bees in ‘ Kosmos.’
IT am trying some experiments with bees here on way-
finding; but, contrary tomy expectations, I find that
most bees, when marked and liberated at one hundred
yards from their hive, do not get back for along time.
This fact makes it more difficult to test their mode of
way-finding, as the faculty (whatever it is) does not
seem to be certain.

Many thanks for sending me the book on Worms
so early. As yet I have only had time to look at
the table of contents, which seems most interesting.

Lockyer is staying here just now, and has given
me the proofs of his book. It seems to me that he
has quite carried the position as to the elements being
products of development.

K 2

132 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

Down: October 14.

My dear Romanes,—lI have just read the splendid
review of the Worm book in ‘ Nature.’ I have been
much pleased by it, but at the same time you so
over-estimate the value of what I do, that you make
me feel ashamed of myself, and wish to be worthy of
such praise. I cannot think how you can endure to
spend so much time over another’s work, when you
have yourself so much in hand; I feel so worn out,
that I do not suppose I shall ever again give re-
viewers trouble.

I hope that your opus magnum is progressing well,
and when we meet later in the autumn I shall be
anxious to hear about it.

In a few days’ time we are going to visit Horace
in Cambridge for a week, to see if that will refresh me.

Pray give my kind remembrances to Mrs. Romanes,
and I hope you are all well.

Garvock, Bridge of Earn, Perthshire: October 16, 1881.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—If I did not know you so
well, I should think that you are guilty of what our
nurse calls ‘mock modesty.’ At least I know that if
I, or anybody else, had written the book which I re-
viewed, your judgment would have been the first to
endorse all I have said. I never allow personal friend-
ship to influence what I say in reviews; and if I am
so uniformly stupid as to ‘ over-estimate the value of
all you do,’ it is at any rate some consolation to know
that my stupidity is so universally shared by all the

1887 ECHINODERMS AND ANEMONES 133

men of my generation. But your letters are to me
always psychological studies, and especially so when,
as in this one, you seem without irony intentionally
grim to refer to my work in juxtaposition with your
own.

The proof-sheets are coming in, and I suppose the
book will be out in a month or two. I do not know
why they are so slow in setting up the type. But, as
I said once before, this book will not be so good (or
so little bad) as the one that is to follow.

Ewart and I have been working at the Echino-
derms again, and at last have found the internal
nervous plexus. Also tried poisons, and proved still
further the locomotor function of the pedicellariz.

T observed a curious thing about anemones. If
a piece of food is placed in a pool or tank where a
number are closed, in a few minutes they all expand:
clearly they smell the food.

I am deeply sorry to hear that you feel ‘ worn out,’
but cannot imagine that the reviewers have done with
you yet. :

The vivisection fight does not promise well. Like
yourself, most of the champions do not like the idea.

G. J. Romanzs.

There are many other letters, but care has been
taken only to select the most interesting. In 1881
came the last visit to Down, full of brightness.
Mr. Darwin was most particularly kind, and gave
Mr. Romanes some of his own MSS., including a paper
on ‘ Instinct,’ which is bound up with Mr. Romanes’
own book, ‘ Mental Evolution in Animals.’ It trans-
pired that Mr. Darwin was extremely fond of novels

134 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 188i—

and had the most delightful way of offering his guests
books to take to bed with them. In fact, Down was
one of the few houses in which readable books adorned
the guest-chambers.

It came out on this occasion that Mr. Darwin had
an especial love for the books written by the author
of ‘Mademoiselle Mori.’ He offered one of his guests
‘Denise,’ saying it was his favourite tale, or words to
that effect.

Down was indeed one of the most delightful of
houses in which to stay, and that snowy January
Sunday of 1881 was a very real red letter day.

To Miss C. H. Romanes.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: July 24, 1881.

My dearest Charlotte,—There have been no letters
from you for two days, so | have nothing to answer.

I did not write yesterday because we were spend-
ing the day with Mr. Teesdale, in his house at Down,
and did not get back again till past the post hour.
We went over to pay a call upon Darwin. He and
his wife were at home, and as kind and glad to see us
as possible. The servant gave our names wrongly to
them, and they thought we were a very old couple
whom they know, called Norman. So old Darwin came
in with a huge canister of snuff under his arm—old
Norman being very partial to this laxury—and looked
very much astonished at finding us. He was as
grand and good and bright as ever.

In to-day’s ‘ Times’ you will see a letter by ‘ F.R.S.’
which is worth reading, as are all the productions of
his able pen.

1887 DEATH OF MR. DARWIN 135

I have been applied to by the Editor of the
‘Encyclopedia Britannica’ to supply an article on
‘Instinct.’ This I am writing.

We are all quite well, except that I have had a
cold, which is now going away.

With united love to all, yours ever the same.

GEORGE.

One evening Mr. Romanes personally ‘ conducted ’
Mr. Darwin to the Royal Institution to hear a lec-
ture by Dr. Sanderson on ‘Dionea.’ A burst of
applause greeted Mr. Darwin’s entrance, much to that
great man’s surprise. arlier in the day he had half
timidly asked Mr. Romanes if there would be room
at the Royal Institution for him.

In 1882 came the great sorrow of Mr. Darwin’s
death. The following letters show something of
what the loss was to the ardent disciple, the loyal-
hearted friend.

To Francis Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: April 22, 1882.

My dear Darwin,—I did not write because I
thought it might trouble you, but I sent some flowers
yesterday which did not require acknowledgment.

Even you, I do not think, can know all that this
death means tome. I have long dreaded the time,
and now that it has come it is worse than I could
anticipate. Hven the death of my own father—
though I loved him deeply, and though it was more
sudden, did not leave a desolation so terrible. Half
the interest of my life seems to have gone when I

136 GHORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

cannot look forward any more to his dear voice of
welcome, or to the letters that were my greatest hap-
piness. For now there is no one to venerate, no one
to work for, or to think about while working. I
always knew that I was leaning on these feelings too
much, but I could not try to prevent them, and so at
last I am left with a loneliness that never can be
filled. And when I think how grand and generous
his kindness was to me, grief is no word for my loss.

But I know that your grief is greater than mine,
and that, like him, I should try to think of others
before myself. And I do feel for you all very much
indeed. But although I cannot endure to picture
your house or your household as the scene of such a
death, I can derive some consolation from the thought
that he died as few men in the history of the world
have died—knowing that he had finished a gigantic
work, seeing how that work has transformed the
thoughts of mankind, and foreseeing that his name
must endure to the end of time among the very
greatest of the human race. Very, very rare is such
consolation as this in a house of mourning.

I look forward to hearing more about the end
when we meet. I feel it is very kind of you to have
written to me so soon, and I hope you will convey
our very sincere sympathy to Mrs. Darwin and the
other members of your family.

Yours ever sincerely,
Gro. J. Romanzs.

After ‘Mr. Darwin’s Life’ appeared, Mr. Romanes
writes :—

1887 THE LIFE OF MR. DARWIN 137

To Francis Darwin, Esq.
Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: November 21, 1887.

Dear Darwin,—In this far-away place I have only
to-day seen the ‘Times’ review, and sent for the
book. But from what the review says I can see that
all the world has to thank you. Therefore I write at
once to say how more than glad I feel that you have
carried so great a work to so successful a termination.
How glad you must be that the immense labour and
anxiety of it allis over. Do not trouble to answer,
but believe in the genuine congratulations of

Yours very truly,
Gro. J. Romanes.

November 26, 1887.

I write again to thank you—this time for the pre-
sentation copy of the Life and Letters. I had pre-
viously got one, but am very glad to have the work
in duplicate. It is indeed splendidly done.

I send you the enclosed to post or not, as you think
best. On reading ——’s letter yesterday it occurred
to me that if any answer were required, it might be
better for somebody other than yourself to supply it.
But I do not know how you may think it best to
treat this man, therefore post the letter or not, ac-
cording to your judgment.

Yours very sincerely,
Gro. J. Romans.

Geanies: December 1, 1887.

T have now nearly finished the ‘ Life and Letters,’
and cannot express my admiration of your work.

138 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

What a mercy it is that you were so wonderfully
qualified to do it.
Yours ever indebtedly,
Gro. J. Romanzs.

Mr. Romanes wrote one of the memorial notices
in the little volume ‘Charles Darwin,’ published by
Messrs. Macmillan.

Thus closed a very significant and important
chapter in his life.

The relationship of disciple to master ceased for
him, no one else exactly held the place Mr. Darwin
had held, to no one else did he so constantly refer ;
and dear as were other friends, notably Dr. Burdon
Sanderson, no one stood in the position to Romanes
of ‘The Master.’

There was no exaggeration in his expressions
of grief, or in the verses in which he poured out his

soul :—
‘T loved him with a strength of love!
Which man to man can only bear
When one in station far above
The rest of men, yet deigns to share
A friendship true with those far down
The ranks: as though a mighty king,
Girt with his armies of renown,
Should call within his narrow ring
Of counsellors and chosen friends
Some youth who scarce can understand
How it began or how it ends
That he should grasp the monarch’s hand.’

To all those to whom a great friendship has been
given, a friendship, not on equal terms, but one in
which the chief elements on one side have been
reverence and gratitude. on the other affectionate

1 Charles Darwin: a memorial poem.

1887 POEM ON MR. DARWIN 139

approval and esteem, to all such fortunate souls
these letters and verses will appeal. For it is no
small matter in a man’s life that he should have had
a passionate friendship for a great man, a real leader ;
and it is a still greater matter that the younger man
should have found his confidence, his devotion, his
reverence worthily bestowed.

To Francis Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: January 13, 1885.

Dear Darwin,—I will think over the conversations
and write you again whether there is anything that
would do for publishing.

Meanwhile I send for your perusal some verses
which I have written at odds and ends of time since
he died. ‘This was only done for my own gratifica-
tion, and without any view to publishing. But having
recently had them put together and copied out, I
have sent them to two or three of the best poetical
critics for their opinion upon the literary merits of the
poem asa whole. The result of this has been more
satisfactory than I anticipated; and as one of them
suggests that I should offer the verses as an
addendum to the biography, I act upon the coinci-
dence of receiving your letter and his at about the
same time.

It seems to me there are two things for you to
consider: first, whether anything in the way of
poetry, however good, is desirable; and next, if so,
whether this poetry is good enough for the occasion.
The first question would be answered by your own

140 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 18s1-

feelings, and the second, I suppose, by submitting
the verses to some good authority for an opinion—
say one to whom I have not sent them. Only, if the
matter were to go as far as this, I should like you to
explain to the critic that as it stands the poem is only
in the rough. If it were to be revised for publication
I should spend a good deal of trouble over the process
of polishing, and some of the lines expressive of pas-
sionate grief would be altogether changed.

In sending you the MS8.I rely upon you not to
let the authorship be known to anyone without first
asking me, because, although I have published poetry
already,’ it has been anonymous, and I do not want
it to be known that I have this propensity. And on
this account, if these verses were to appear in the
biography, it would require to be without my name,
or headed in some such way as ‘Memorial verses by
a friend.’ In this case I should modify any of the
lines which might lead to the author being spotted.

Should you decide against admitting them, I do
not think that I should publish them anywhere else,
because where such a personality is concerned, inde-
pendent publication (without the occasion furnished
by the appearance of a biography) might seem pre-
sumptuous even on the part of an anonymous writer.

Yesterday I received a letter from the Frenchman
who translated my book on ‘ Mental Evolution,’ ask-
ing me to let him know whether he might apply for
the translation of the biography. His name is De
Varigny, and he does some original work in verte-

1 A few stray poems in magazines.

1887 REDE LECTURE 141

brate physiology. I think he has done my book very

well.
Yours ever sincerely,
G. J. Romanss.

Can you suggest a subject for a Rede lecture
which I have to give in May ?

142 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

CHAPTER III

LONDON—GEANIES
1881—1890

OnE may now for a short space turn away from the
scientific side of Mr. Romanes’ life and speak a little
of other aspects.

No one was ever a more incessant worker and
thinker. If he went away for a short visit, his
writing went too; and if in Scotland wet weather
interfered with shooting, he would sit down and write
something, perhaps a poem, perhaps (as he once said
playfully when condoled with on account of heavy
rain and absence of books, ‘I don’t care, I'll write an
essay on the freedom of the will’) an article for a
magazine.

A great deal of reviewing, chiefly in ‘ Nature,’
filled up some of his time, and he also turned his
attention more and more to poetry.

In the postscript of a letter written in 1878 to
Mr. Darwin he says: ‘I am beginning to write
poetry!’ and poetry interested him more and more
as years went on. Of this, more later.

He much enjoyed society; he ceased to mingle
exclusively with scientific and philosophical people,
and as time went on he became acquainted with
many of the notabilities of the day. And, as has been

1890 HIS CHILDREN 143

said, it is impossible perhaps to exaggerate the out-
ward pleasantness of those years.

He was able to devote himself to his work; he
had an ever-increasing number of devoted friends
both of men and women, and he was intensely happy
in his home hfe.

His children were a great and increasing interest
to him, and he was an ideal father, tender, sym-
pathetic, especially as infancy grew into childhood.
He shared in all his children’s interests, and lived
with them on terms of absolute friendship, chaffing
and being chaffed, enjoying an interchange of pet
names and jokes, and yet exacting obedience and
gentle manners, and never permitting them as small
children to make themselves troublesome to visitors
in any way, or to chatter freely at meals when guests
were present.

He had very strong feelings about the importance
of making children familiar with the Bible. He used
to say that as a mere matter of literary education
everyone ought to be familiar with the Bible from
beginning to rend. He himself was exceedingly well
versed in Holy Scripture.

He also thought a good classical training very
desirable for boys (and girls also), and had no
very great belief in science being taught to any great
extent during a boy’s school career. Memory, he
considered, ought to be cultivated in aiathoed, ‘and
he did not think that the reasoning powers ought to
be inuch taxed in early years. He used to say that
Euclid could be learnt much more easily if it were
begun later in boyhood. He also much wished that
foreign languages should be taught very early in life,
and with little or no attention to grammar.

144 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881-

Perhaps a few words of reminiscence from one of
his children may not be unwelcome.

MEMORIES.—G. J. BR.

I remember that when my father was particularly
amused at anything, he used a certain gesture, which,
according to the ‘Life of Darwin,’* must have been
precisely similar to that of Darwin, and was probably
unconsciously copied by my father. He never used
the gesture except when very much tickled at hearing
some amusing story; when the climax of the story
was reached he would burst into a peal of hearty
laughter, at the same time bringing his hand heavily
but noiselessly down upon his knee or on the table
near him.

When we were at Geanies, our greatest delight
was ‘to go out shooting with father.’ We used to
tramp for hours together over turnip and grass fields
behind my father and the gamekeeper. We used to
enjoy the expeditions so much better if our father
was the only sportsman, for then we had him all to
ourselves. We were very small then; our ages were
ten, nine, and six respectively, but we were good
walkers and we never became tired. What little
sunburnt, healthy, grubby children we were to be
sure! When Bango, the setter, pointed at a covey,
we all had to stand quite still while our father walked
forward towards the dog. Directly the covey rose
we all ‘ducked’ for safety. I shall never forget the
joy and pride we felt when a bird fell, and we ran

1 Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, by Francis Darwin, vol. i. p. iii.

1890 A SONNET ON CHILDREN 145

with shouts of triumph to pick it up. Then the
delight of eating lunch under a hedge or in a wood!
That was a time of jokes and fun, and we talked as
freely and unrestrainedly as we liked about all kinds
of subjects. Then came some more tramping in the
turnips, and we would journey homewards, a weary
but very happy little party. The counting of the
game would follow, and our pride was very great
when the number of brace was high, for we felt that
we had been helping our father to slay the partridges.
Tn fact, we thought that Sandy, the gamekeeper, was
a very useless personage when we went out, for did
we not mark as well as, or better than, he did? And
surely we could carry the game bags; they were not
very heavy even when they were full to bursting !

There was something very beautiful in the respect
and reverence which George Romanes felt for children
and for child-life, and a sonnet ‘To my Children’
expresses these feelings :—

‘Of all the little ones whom I have known

Ye are so much the fairest in my view—

So much the sweetest and the dearest few—
That not because ye are my very own
Do I behold a wonder that is shown

Of loveliness diversified in you:

It is because each nature as it grew
Surpassed a world of joy already grown.

If months bestow such purpose on the years,
May not the years work out a greater plan ?
Vast are the heights which form this ‘ vale of tears,’
And though what lies beyond we may not scan,
Thence came my little flock—strayed from their spheres,
As lambs of God turned children into man.’

L

146 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

As has been said, for music Mr. Romanes had an
absolute passion. A good concert of chamber or of
orchestral music was absolute happiness to him, and
he heard a great deal in these years. One or two of
his friends were excellent musicians. To one of these
he once wrote a sonnet, ‘T'o a Member of the Bach
Choir,’ and sent it to her in the form of a Christmas
card, producing much pleasant mystification and
laughter when it was discovered from whom the
sonnet came.

To Miss Paget.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park: December 27, 1887.

Dear Miss Paget,—lIf my sonnet gave half as much
pleasure as your note, 1 am sure we have both the
best reasons to be glad. The letter was as much a
surprise to me as the former was to you, because, far
from seeing the ‘ ungraciousness’ of yesterday, even
then I thought that my reward was much in excess
of my deserving. But your further response of to-
day has given me a greater happiness than I can tell;
let it, therefore, be told in some of the greatest words
of the greatest man I ever knew. These you will
find in the first nine lines of a letter on page 323,
vol. ii., of the ‘ Life of Darwin,’ and in one respect
you have conferred an additional benefit, for, unlike
him, I did not previously know that my own feelings
of friendship were so fully reciprocated. If you think
that this amounts to a confession of dulness on my
part, my only excuse is that I formed too just an
estimate of my own merits as compared with those of

1 Miss M. M. Paget.

1890 LOVE FOR MUSIC 147

a friend. All that the latter were, or in this estimate
must ever continue to be, I shall not now venture to
say; for, if I did, the peculiar ethics of the Paget
family (which you have been good enough to explain)
would certainly pound this letter into a pulp. But
there are two remarks which I may hazard. The
first is, that I make it a point of what may be called
esthetic conscience never to write anything in verse
which is not perfectly sincere. The next is, that my
dulness is not so bad as to have prevented me from
observing the Sebastian attachment.

Last Christmas I lost my greatest and my dearest
friend. This Christmas I have found that I had a
better friend than I was aware of. For the season-
able kindness, therefore, of your truly Yule-tide
consolation, gratias tibi ago.

ver yours, most sincerely,
G. J. Romanss.

For some years a delightful society existed in
London, known as the ‘Home Quartet Union,’ the
members of which met at different houses and listened
to perfect music performed by first-rate artists under
perfect conditions.

There were few happier evenings in his life than
those spent in such a way.

Of all composers, Beethoven represented to him
everything that was highest in art or poetry; for
Beethoven, Mr. Romanes had much the same reve-
rence and admiration which he felt for Darwin, and
perhaps Beethoven, in other and very different ways,
taught him and influenced him much.

1 The friend referred to on p. 186,
L2

148 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

He was very catholic in his musical tastes, except
perhaps that Italian opera never greatly fascinated
him. Wagner’s operas, on the other hand, became a
creat delight, particularly after a visit to Baireuth in
1888, where he saw ‘ Parsifal’ and ‘ Meistersinger.’

Politics interested Mr. Romanes moderately. He
was by nature and by family tradition a Conservative,
but he cared very little for parties, and admired great
men on whichever side of the House they sat.

Perhaps of all living politicians, the one for whom
he had the greatest enthusiasm and respect was
Mr. Arthur Balfour. For him, both as a politician
and as a thinker, Mr. Romanes had an unbounded
admiration. In 1880 came the first of many visits
to Oxford. This time Mr. Romanes and his wite
were Mr. Francis Paget’s guests, and met in his
rooms at Christ Church Dr. Liddon and Mr. Scott
Holland.

EXTRACTS FROM JOURNAL!

Feb. 1881.—Went to Mr. Norman Lockyer. Seve-
ral people, including William Black, the novelist,
were there. After Mr. Lockyer had shown us several
experiments in spectrum analysis, a lady asked him
‘What is the use of the spectroscope?’ Called on
Mr. Cotter Morison and saw some beautiful books.
He is a wonderfully good talker.

June 1881.—Dmner at the Spottiswoodes’. Mr.
Browning was there and talked much about Victor
Hugo. He mentioned that when Wordsworth was
told that Miss Barrett had married Mr. Browning,

1 It should be explained that the writer of this memoir is responsible
for the Journal, but as it was kept for the benefit of both husband and
wife afew extracts are given.

1899 LETTER TO MISS ROMANES 149

he replied, ‘It’s a good thing these two understand
each other, for no one else understands them.’

Garvock, Perthshire : November 5, 1881.

My dearest Charlotte,—I thought you would like
the photos, and your letter to-day more than justifies
my anticipation. Coming events cast their shadows
before, and it will not now be long before you see the
former. These are both exceedingly wel. I wish
you could see little Hthel dancing. It is now her
sreatest amusement, and she does it with all the state
and gravity of an eighteenth century grande dame.

Many thanks for your prompt action about the
proofs. You did everything in the best possible way,
as I knew you would. It is a great blessing you were
in London at the time, as the caretaker would be sure
to have made some mistake, and time is pressing.

The duke has answered me in this week’s ‘ Nature,’
and likewise has Carpenter. I have written a re-
joinder for next week’s issue in a tone which I have
tried to make at once dignified and blunt. —

I send you a riddle which I have just made. See
if you can answer it in your next.

‘ My first is found in Scripture,
My second hangs in air,
My third a thing to all unknown,
Yet maps can tell you where.

My whole is neither fact nor thing,
A word, yet not a word,

And if you stand me on my head,
I’m bigger by a third.’ !

Much love from both to both.

Yours ever the same,

GEORGE.
1 The answer is the word siz.

150 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

In this Journal constant mention occurs of con-
certs and of the pleasure given by amateur musical
friends. The late Professor Rowe’s name often occurs ;
he succeeded Professor Clifford at University College,
and besides his great mathematical attainments he
was also a most accomplished musician. He played
Schumann especially in the most poetic way.

Journal, Feb. 1882.—Lecture by Professor Tyndall
on the action of molecular heat. Triumphant vindi-
cation of his own work against Magnus and Tait.

April 2.—Sunday, the 25th, we spent at Oxford,
met the Warden of Keble in Mr. F. Paget’s rooms,
as a year ago we had met Dr. Liddon. Met Mr.
Vernon Harcourt at Christ Church.

May.—Met Shorthouse, author of ‘John Ingle-
sant,’ at the F. Pollocks’. He spoke of Mr. Scott-
Holland’s review of his book. Sir F. Bramwell
lectured the other day at the Royal Institution on
the making of the Channel tunnel, and was as
amusing as usual. Tea with Dr. and Mrs. Huggins
in their pretty house, which is full of beautiful things.
Much talk about spiritualism.

June.—Interesting talk with Mr. J. R. Green.
Both J. R. G. and G. J. R. agreed that Herbert
Spencer, Professor Huxley, and Leshe Stephen only
represented one side of the question, 7.e. that conduct
can only be called moral when it is beneficial to the
race, and that the ethical quality of an action is
determined solely by its effects as beneficial or
injurious. This purely mechanical view of morality
deprives morality of what both speakers considered
the essential elements of morality as such, 2.e. the

1890 FRESH-WATER MEDUSZ& 151

feeling of right and wrong, so that, e.g., ants and
bees, according to this canon, have a right to be con-
sidered more truly moral than men.

The view taken by J. R. G. and G. J. R. was that
the essential element of morality resided in feeling
and inclination.

To Miss C. EH. Romanes.

18 Cornwall Terrace: June 9.

My dearest Charlotte,—We are all well and lively.
Ascot and an ‘at home’ yesterday ; to-day artists’
studios, dinner at the Pagets’, and Sanderson’s
lecture ; to-morrow, College of Surgeons’ reception
and dinner party of our own; and next week, one,
two, or three engagements for every day. ‘Babylon’
is in full swing, and I heard yesterday, from the head
of the Census department, that for the last ten years
it has been growing at the rate of 1,000 per week.

I have only time to write a few lines to thank you
and the mother for the very jolly letters received this
morning, and to let you know that we are all well.

The reason of my haste now is this extraordinary
discovery that has been made in the Botanical
Gardens, and which you have probably read about in
the ‘Times.’ Meduse have been found in swarms
in the fresh-water tank of the Victoria Regina Lily.
Such a thing as a fresh-water Medusa has never been
heard of before, and I want to lose no time in getting
to work upon his physiology. You see, when I don’t
go to the jelly-fish the jelly-fish come to me, and I am
bound to have jelly-fish wherever I go.

152 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881=

It would have been very odd if I had been the dis-
coverer, as I should have been had I known that there
was a living Victoria Regis, for then I should have
gone to see the plant, and would not have failed to
see the Meduse. Only in that case I might have
begun to grow superstitious, and to think that im
some way my fate was bound up in jelly-fish.

I must get to work soon because all the naturalists
are in a high state of excitement, and there has been
a regular scramble for priority.

The worst about this jelly-fish is that it will only
live in a temperature of 90°, so I shall have to work
atit inthe Victoria House, which is kept at a tempera-
ture of 100°, and makes one ‘sweat.’ But I shall not
work long at a time.

From 1882 to 1890 Mr. Romanes rented Geanies,
a beautiful place overlooking the Moray Firth. It
belongs to a cousin of the Romanes family, Captain
Murray, of the 8lst Regiment. Captain Murray’s
mother and sisters lived not far away, and the
Murrays and Romanes formed a little coterie in that
not very populous neighbourhood.

He continued to be an ardent sportsman, and
probably his happiest days were those he spent
tramping over moors or plodding through turnips in
those October days of perfect beauty, which seem
especially peculiar to Scotland.

The surroundings of Geanies, without being
romantically beautiful, have a charm of their own.
There is a certain melancholy and loneliness about
the inland landscape round Geanies which appealed
strongly to him. It is a place abounding in every

UID TO) oD YJIMS "AY “sAssapy 49 ygv4soj0yg wv mosf poonporsgay
HUlHS-SSOU ‘SHINVAD

1890 GHANIES 153

kind of sea-bird, and it is almost impossible to de-
scribe the weird, uncanny effect which the long
endless twilight of the summer, the silence broken
by hootings of owls, by the scream of a sea-gull, pro-
duce on one.

It is an old rambling house with long passages
and mysterious staircases, and, as the children found,
endless conveniences for playing at hide-and-seek.
The library is a most lovely room, lined with book-
cases, and leading into an old-fashioned garden, full
of sweet-smelling flowers.

It is impossible to imagine a more ideal abode for
a poet, a naturalist, a botanist, a sportsman, than
this, his summer home; and as Mr. Romanes was,
to some extent, all four, Geanies was a place of
exceeding happiness to him.

Two of his sonnets are dedicated to his dogs, ‘To
my Setters,’ and ‘To Countess,’ and the following
letter will show him as a sportsman.

To Mrs. Romanes.
Achalibster,’ Caithness: August 14, 1883.

To-day turned out not at all bad after all; and
although there was a good deal too much rain I
had a glorious time. Bag twenty brace of grouse,
one brace plover, one hare, one duck; I could
easily have got more, only Bango got so tired in the
afternoon that we knocked off at five o’clock, more-
over I did not begin till eleven, as I did not wake till
ten! So the twenty brace was shot in about five
hours. The new setter ‘Flora’ is a beauty. She is

+ A moor taken in addition to the low ground shooting of Geanies.

154 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

extraordinarily like Bango, but with a prettier face.
She is a splendid worker.

Even at Geanies he always ‘worked’ for some
part of the day, and sport, tennis, boating, filled up
the rest of his time.

Very often there was a house party, and the
evenings were particularly bright—merry talk, games,
very amateurish theatricals, learned discussions. -
Nothing came amiss to the master of the house. He
was always a httle apt to be absent-minded and
dreamy, and his pet name, bestowed on him by the
dearest and merriest of all the merry ‘ Geanies brother-
hood’ was ‘ Philosopher.’ It stuck, and many people
only knew him by that name.

No one ever appreciated a good story more than
he, and, as a friend has said, ‘ his laugh was so merry
and so often heard.’

His own jokes were invariably free from any un-
kindness, and he did not in the least appreciate
repartee or epigram, the point of which lay chiefly, if
not wholly, in unkindness. Many friends enlivened
his summer home, and all those who paid a second
visit were known as the ‘ Geanies brotherhood.’

Journal, Geanies, July 26.—Yesterday came the
terrible news of Mr. Frank Balfour’s sudden death.*
His loss is irreparable. It is only a month since we
met him at Cambridge, looking so well, quite recovered
from his recent illness; we were looking forward to
his promised visit.

Sept.—Mr. Lockyer, the Bruntons, and the Burdon

1 Mr. F. Balfour was killed on the Aiguille Blanche de Peuteret, July
1882.

1890 NOVEL-READING 155

Sandersons have been here. Memorial Poem to
Darwin begun.

Nov. 14, Edinburgh.—Met for the first time Mr.
and Mrs. Butcher, who were just taking possession
of the Greek Chair; also Professor Blackie, who was
himself, and talked much of the insolence of John
Bull.

Jan. 1883.—Dr. Sanderson is elected Professor of
Physiology at Oxford.

To this election was due the ultimate change
in Mr. Romanes’ life in 1890, when he followed
Dr. Sanderson to Oxford, attracted mainly by the
facilities for physiological research.

On Jan. second of this year (1883) his mother died.

Mr. Romanes lectured at the Royal Institution in
January, and immediately afterwards went abroad on
one of the only two Continental tours he took simply
for pleasure. He much enjoyed this Italian journey,
and the rhyming instinct woke up in him greatly.
He wrote a good deal about this time, and one of his
sonnets has reference to this journey— Florence.’
He also made acquaintance for the first time with a
good many well-known novels, read to him during a
temporary illness at Florence—the precursor, alas, of
many such times of novel-reading. He shared Mr.
Darwin’s tastes for simple, pure, love stories, and
one of the party at Florence well remembers how
‘The Heir of Redclyffe’ brought tears to his eyes.
For this and ‘The Chaplet of Pearls,’ read to him
some years later, he had a great admiration.

Journal, March 28, 1883.—My. F. Paget’s wedding
in St. Paul’s, a special anthem by Stainer. The

156 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

Warden of Keble and Dr. Liddon married them, and
the whole service was very impressive.

June.—Mr. Spottiswoode’s death has been a ter-
rible blow. Service at the Abbey. We put off our
party on June 27th; it seemed improper to have a
party, mainly composed of scientific people, the very
day after the death of the President of the Royal
Society.

12ti.—Dinner at the Pagets’. Met Browning,'
who is entirely on Carlyle’s side a propos of Froude’s
recent revelations.

13th.—Went to Cambridge to stay with the
Humphrys. Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Watts, Mr. M.
Arnold get their degrees.

15th.—Went to Professor and Mrs. Allman, at
Parkston. He is a most fascinating naturalist of the
old type, caring for birds, and beasts, and flowers.

Met Mr. HK. Clodd the other night, who alluded to
‘Physicus’? and the tone of depression in the book
(‘Candid Examination of Theism ’), which depression
he does not understand and rather despises.

This year Mr. Romanes and Professor Ewart set
up a small laboratory on the Geanies coast, and the
Journal notes :

Professor Ewart could not get the farmhouse he
hoped, and this was unfortunate, as he had written
to the British Association and invited one or two

1 Mr. Browning told the same story of the Carlyles at this party which
Mrs. Ritchie narrates in Tennyson, Ruskin, and Browning, pp. 198, 199.

* The nom de plume adopted in writing Candid Examination of
Theism.

1890 GEANIES—LONDON 157

foreigners to come and work and live in this farm-
house. In vain were the foreigners warned not to
come, for one evening in walked a young Dane, who
preceded a postcard he had sent announcing his
arrival. Very nice, and extremely embarrassed at
finding himself in a country house where people
dressed for dinner.

However, he got accommodation in the neigh-
bourhood and worked at Ascidians, but the expe-
riment of inviting stray foreign scientists was
abandoned.

Sept.—The Allmans, Turners, and Mr. Lockyer
have been here, and we have been getting up some ©
private theatricals.

Jan. 1884.—Lecture at the Royal Institution on
‘the Darwinian Theory of Instinct.’

To Miss C. H. Romanes.
January 5, 1884.

I am preparing a beautiful surprise for Ethel
after she comes down again. The library is to have
its end wall papered and panelled, the conservatory
is to be painted green, and filled with stands of
flowers, and the little room is to have the window
filled with stained glass, the walls, ceiling, and doors,
beautifully papered and decorated. I expect my
book to pay the bills. Is not this a nice idea?

Little Hthel’s ideas about writing, by the way, are
original. A few days ago she wanted me to play at
gee-gee. I said, ‘No, Ethel, father is writing.’ She
asked, ‘Writing letters or writing book?’ I said,

158 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

‘Writing book.’ Whereupon she made the shrewd
remark—‘ Father not writing to anybody, father can
play gee-gee.’ So much for her estimate of my
popularity as an author.

Journal, April.—Lecture at Manchester; stayed
with Professor Boyd Dawkins.

This year Mr. Romanes attended Canon Curteis’
‘Boyle Lectures’ at Whitehall.

Journal, March 1883.—‘G. Lectured at :
One of the hearers asked whether in the lecturer’s
opinion man or animals had first appeared on the

earth! G. spent a pleasant day at Bromsgrove with
the F. Pagets.’

To James Romanes, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: June 1, 1884.

My dearest James,—Little Ethel has just brought
me the enclosed letter to send to you. She had
written it as far as the up and down lines go, and
said it was to tell you how much she loved you, and
how sorry she was that she should not see you when
she goes to Geanies. She then asked me to tell her
how to write kiss. I told her that in letters they
write kiss by a cross, and then she made the crosses.
She also made me promise to send you the letter at
once, without any delay; and as the idea of writing
you a letter was entirely her own, I do as I was told.
You may take it as a definite expression of the
emotions, even though it be not a very intelligible
expression of ideas.

1890 ILL-HEALTH 159

She wants to know why you are going away, and
whether you will write to her when you are away, and
a heap of other questions of the same kind.

We are all well now, and I am just going with
the two Ethels to a children’s service, which they
both enjoy. It is very pretty to hear the little one
singing with the other children, which she does per-
fectly in tune.

They are waiting for me now, so with best love

from all
, Yours ever the same,

GEORGE.
To Mrs. Romanes.

There is nothing to tell you to-day except that -
I dined with the , and one thing after another
was more comical than the last. The boys both
spontaneously expressed their desire to write to you.
The enclosed is the result. It does not seem much
as to quantity, but if you knew the time and labour it
required you would value it highly. I am going to the
theatre with the Pollocks after lunch, and then to
read my paper.

In 1885 came the first warnings of ill-health. Mr.
Romanes had a short but very sharp illness, and after
that year he suffered frequently from gout, which
necessitated visits to various foreign ‘ cures.’ He was a
perfect travelling companion, he liked to have arrange-
ments made for him, and was never discomposed if
anything went wrong, never put out by any of the
ordinary mischances of travel. Although he always
professed indifference to architecture and art, he would
grow quite boyishly enthusiastic over some cathedral,

160 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

as his sonnets to Amiens, and Christ Church, Oxford,'
testify, and for sculpture he had a real love.

In May 1885 came the first marked public utter-
ance which showed that Mr. Romanes was now in a
very different mental attitude to that in which he
wrote his ‘ Candid Examination of Theism.’

He delivered the Rede Lecture at Cambridge, and
in it he criticises the materialistic position. (It must
be remembered that his anti-Theistic book was pub-
lished anonymously, and at that time he had no
intention of ever referring to it.)

The reaction set in very soon after the ‘ Candid
Examination’ was published.

He was severe, as it seemed often to those who
knew him best, unduly severe with himself, and often
described himself as utterly agnostic when possibly
‘bewildered ’ would have better described him.

Through these years, underneath all the outward
happiness, the intense love for scientific work, there
was the same longing and craving for the old belief,
and before his eyes was always the question, ‘Is
Christian faith possible or intellectually justifiable in
the face of scientific discovery ?’

These years between 1879 and 1890 were years of
frequent despondency, of almost despair, but also of
incessant seeking after truth, and year after year he
grew gradually nearer Christian belief.

The letters which follow will be interesting in
this place. They arose out of a correspondence in
‘ Nature.’?

1 See sonnets, The Bible of Amiens, and Christ Church, Ozford.
2 See Nature, January 25, 1883.

1899 CORRESPONDENCE WITH DR. ASA GRAY 161

T'o Professor Asa Gray.
May 16, 1883.

Dear Professor Gray,—The receipt of your kind
letter of the Ist instant has given me in full measure
the sincerest kind of pleasure ; for in the hght sup-
plied by your second letter communicated to
‘Nature ’ I came deeply to regret my misunderstand-
ing of the spirit in which you wrote the first one, and
now you enable me to feel that we have shaken
hands over the matter.

For my own part I am always glad when differ-
ences in matter of opinion admit of being honestly
expressed without enmity, and still more so when, as
in the present case, this discussion leads to a basis of
friendship. I therefore thank you most heartily for
your letter, and remain yours very truly,

G. J. Romanzs.

P.S.—If you have not already happened to read a
bookcalled‘ A Candid Examination of Theism,’ Ishould
like to send you a copy. I wrote it six or seven years
ago and published it anonymously in 1878. I do not
now hold to all the arguments, nor should I express
myself so strongly on the argumentative force of the
remainder, but I should like you to read the book, in
order to show you how gladly I would enter your
camp if I could only see that it is on the side of
Truth.

December 30, 1888.

Dear Professor Gray,—I sent you my papers as a
return for those which you so kindly sent to me, and
M

162 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

for which I have written to thank you before. I
quite agree with your view, that the doctrine of the
human mind having been proximately evolved from
lower minds is not incompatible with the doctrine of
its having been due to a higher and supreme mind.
Indeed, I do not think the theory of evolution, even
if fully proved, would seriously affect the previous
standing of this more important question.

The sorrow is, that this question is so far removed
from the reach of any trustworthy answer. Or, at
least, such is the sorrowif that answer when it comes
is to prove an affirmative. If it is to be an eternal
sleep, no doubt it is better to live as we are than in
the certainty of a Godless universe. But although
we cannot find any sure answer to this momentous
question, I cannot help feeling that it is reasonable (al-
though it may not be orthodox) to cherish this much
faith, that if there is a God, whom, when we see, we
can truly worship as well as dread, He cannot ez
hypothesi be a God who will thwart the strong desire
which He has implanted in us to worship Him,
merely because we cannot find evidence enough to
believe this or that doctrine of dogmatic Theology.

But I do not know why I should thus trouble you
with my troubles, unless it is that the kindness of
your letters has broken through the bars by which
we usually imprison such feelings from the world.
Anyhow, I thank you for that kindness, and hope
vou will forgive this somewhat odd requital.

Very sincerely yours,
G. J. Romanus.

1890 RELIGIOUS BELIEF 163

‘The desire to worship Him.’

These words are the key-note of the religious
history of the pure and noble character which I am
trying to describe.

The letters, so touching in the momentary breaking
down of reserve, give, as it were, a glimpse of the
inner life, give an indication of the struggle, the per-
plexity, the sorrow which eleven years later ended in
‘Kternal Peace.’ .

Readers of the lately published ‘Thoughts on
Religion’ will see how gradually he grew to perceive
the reasonableness of the Christian Faith; he had
never doubted the beauty, the moral worth, the
attraction of that faith. And with him it was what
Dante in his ‘Paradiso’ puts into §S. Bernard’s
mouth :

‘A quella luce cotal si diventa,

Che volgersi da lei per altro aspetto
E impossibil che mai si consenta.’

And through all these years there was a constant
willingness to try to aid other people in their diffi-
culties, to remove stumbling-blocks which hindered
others. He was always willing to discuss problems of
belief, always perfectly fair and candid, and there were
not a few who, since his death, have spoken of the
real help which he gave them. He did not drop re-
ligious observances; on Sunday in London he usually
went to Christ Church, Albany Street, of which the
present Bishop of St. Albans was then vicar, and for
some years at Geanies he had a short Evening Service
for guests and servants who could not drive ten miles
to church.

M 2

164 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

This service, unless a clergyman happened to be
staying at Geanies, he conducted himself, and ended
it by reading a sermon. He had all his Presbyterian
ancestors’ love for a good discourse, and serious efforts
had tobe made to prevent him from reading too long
a sermon.

Mozley’s ‘ University Sermons’ he hked parti-
cularly, and when these were divided, they were
tolerated by his audience, who at first considered them
much too long. He also read many of Dean Church’s
sermons.

He first knew the Dean in 1883, and although he
only went very occasionally to the Deanery, he was
creatly impressed by the striking personality of the
great divine and scholar, whom to know was to love.
The Dean’s beautiful style, his great learning, his intel-
lectual sympathy with perplexitiesand troubles of heart
and mind, and the indefinable air of distinction which a
ereat writer stamps on every bit of work he undertakes,
all appealed to Mr. Romanes; and above and beyond
all these, the almost austere loftiness of thought, the
moral heights implhed in Dean Church’s writings,
seized on the mind of one who, beyond all else,
reverenced personal character and personal good-
ness.

He really enjoyed reading Dean Church’s sermons,
and they exercised much influence on him. For
Newman, on the other hand, he had little liking, and
indeed he never did Newman adequate justice. He
had promised a friend just before his death to read
more of Newman, and discover for himself the great
eifts of that wonderful man, but there was not time.
Only one bit of Newman’s writing was dear to him,
‘Lead, kindly Light.’

The following letter rose out of a conversation

‘1s90 CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE REV. F. PAGET 165

Mr. Romanes had with Dr. Paget, during one of the -
Oxford visits :
The Palace, Ely: June 15, 1886.

My dear Romanes,—I have often and anxiously
thought over the question which you asked me when
you were at Oxford abont your boy’s education, and
the part which you should take in his religious train-
ing: and I would venture, with most true and
affectionate gratitude for your trust, to write a few
lines in partial qualification of what I then said.

I start on the ground of your own wish (for which
indeed I am with all my heart thankful) that your boy’s
character should be fashioned after the Christian type
and under the influence of Christ. And lam as anxious
as ever that, even if your own estimate of the evidences
of Christianity should for a long while remain as itis,
your children may never, in their later years, feel that
you ever taught them anything which you did not
believe: on every ground I long to avoid all danger of
such a thought crossing their minds. But at the
same time I do long that they may be spared to the
very last possible moment the knowledge that in the
judgment of the mind which they, I hope, will most
reverence and love, the bases of their religious trust
and hope are uncertain. It is only far on in life, I
think, that a man comes to realise either the vast im-
portance of things which are not held with absolute
certainty, or the mysterious and complex nature of the
act of faith, and the discipline of obscurity, and the
way in which real spiritual progress may be going on
where the mind seems only to be holding on, as it
were, with fear and trembling,

166 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1361

To a boy of sixteen the mere knowledge of uncer-
tainty in his father’s mind may drain all the moral
—cogency out of the whole conception of religion :—the
very suspicion of the uncertainty may unnerve him
more than the full realisation of the doubt would
change his father’s aim and hope in doing his duty.

And so, at the risk of paining you—believe me, I
would rather have the pain than give 1t you—and pre-
suming very thankfully on the wish of which you
spoke, I would plead that your children might remain
as long as possible in ignorance of your uncertainty
and anxiety; that they should only know in a general
way that the religious influences, the principles of
their Godward life which they receive, are given to
them by your wish—that you would have them grow
up after that type, with that hope and aspiration ;
and I would plead that for their sakes you should
suffer the pain, great as it may be, of being reticent
where you long to be ever commrnicative, ever unre-
served. You may be unspeakably thankful some day
that you did so suffer :—and, whatever comes, you will
be sure of your children’s deepest love and gratitude,
if ever they should know that this was one of your
acts of self-sacrifice for them.

Please forgive me, dear Romanes, where I have
written blunderingly, or given you unnecessary pain.
I pray God to guide and teach and gladden both you
and yours, and I am

Your affectionate friend,
Francis Pacer.

1890 CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE REV. F. PAGET 167

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: June 24, 1886.

My dear Paget,—I should indeed require to be
made of unduly sensitive material, if either the
extreme kindness of your thought or the most con-
siderate delicacy of your expression could give me pain.
Pain I have, but it is of a kind that is beyond the
power of friends either to mitigate or to increase.

The advice which you give accords precisely with
my own view of the matter, and it is needless to say
that in such an agreement I find no small degree of
satisfaction. Moreover, the principles which it thus
appears to be my duty to adopt are made easy for me.
... 90 that on the whole it does not now appear to me
that in its practical aspects the problem is likely to
prove difficult of solution; although theoretically,
or as a matter of ethics, I do think it is a complex
question whether (or how far) parents should teach
dogmas as facts, or matters of faith as matters of
knowledge. Happily, however, ethics are to morals
very much what shadow is to sunshine; and in seek-
ing to follow the right or the good, instinct is often a
better guide than syllogism.

And now, in conclusion, let me endeavour—inade-
quately as it must be—to express my deep sense of
gratitude to you for having so earnestly taken my
troubles into your consideration. I assure you that
your letter has touched me truly, and that on its
account I am more than ever happy to subscribe my-
self

Your affectionate friend,
Gro. J. Romanes.

168 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—
Journal says :—

April 12, 1885.—Went with the Church family to
St. Paul’s and heard a fine sermon from Dr. Liddon.
He spoke very touchingly of Lady Selborne’s death,
and also alluded to Max Miller’s new book.

Have been to Pfleiderer’s Hibbert Lectures.' We
met Pfleiderer the other day, and he described a
Sunday in which he had tried to study English
religious life. Spurgeon, Parker, and, I think, Stop-
ford Brooke or Haweis, I forget which, he took as
samples! Pfleiderer also went to St. Paul’s on the
day the Bishop of Lincoln? was consecrated, and as
he got within earshot he heard Dr. Liddon’s silvery
voice pronouncing his own name not with approval.

Geanes, August.—My. Cotter Morison is here, and
is most amusing. Mr. Horsburgh asked two comic
riddles: ‘Why are men like telescopes and women
like telegrams ? ’

Men are like telescopes, because they are made to
be drawn out and shut up; and women are like tele-
grams because they far exceed the males (mails) in
intelligence.

G. fiddled at an amateur concert at Tain.

Mr. F. Galton is here. He told us an amusing
child’s question: ‘ How did sausages get along when
they were alive ?’

1 Mr. Romanes remarked 4 propos of Pfleiderer’s lecture that St. Paul
seemed to be a very hard nut for the lecturer to crack.
2 Dr. King,

1890 GEANIES 169

To Miss C. E. Romanes.
Geanies, Ross-shire : November 7, 1885.

The two Ethels left this afternoon menus their lug-
gage and luncheon, which arrived at the station with
the dog-cart just as the train was leaving. Pathetic
it was to see their hungry eyes looking at the neat
luncheon basket from the train windows! Weare all
well here. L is here. He has now fired his first
hundred cartridges, and has nothing to show but a
brace of cats which he took a pot shot at in the trees.

November 12.

I am now playing at the last day in the old house,
and doing so in the library all by myself. L left
this morning, and we all leave to-morrow. Gerald
now leads me from one room to another, and after open-
ing the door and looking round each says, ‘ All gone!’

I have somewhat relieved the monotony of my
sohtary life by buying a horse. This you will no
doubt think is a purchase well timed and thus worthy
of a philosopher. For six months at least I shall
have to pay for his keep, and never have a chance of
a single bit of use for him allthattime. Yet, strange
to say, I think I have made a good bargain.

Nov., Edinburgh.—Dined at Dalmeny. We met
Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone, and also Lieutenant Greely,
of Arctic fame.

Nov., London.—Dinner with the F. Galtons, and
met the Leckys and other nice people. Mr. Galton

170 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

says the study of statistics fascinates him just as
skating on thin ice does some people—it’s so perilous.

To Mrs. Romanes.

Your letter and postcard most welcome. Yester-
day I dined with the George Turners, and played
chess from eight to one a.M., winning two out of
three games. I told them that for to-night I hesi-
tated whether to go and see some dancing or go to
the ‘ Messiah.’ Isabel said she would throw into the
latter scale the inducement of her own company,
so we are going together. Mr. Diggle signified his
desire to see my school,’ so I went with him.

Returning for a little while to the scientific work
of these years, one may say that they were chiefly
devoted to the more philosophical side of his work as
a naturalist.

‘Animal Intelligence,’ ‘ Mental Evolution in
Animals,’ appeared respectively in 1881 and 1883,
and are works designed to prove that the law of
evolution is universal, and applies to the mind of man
as well as to his bodily organisation.

Mr. Romanes read widely and observed much, and —
no one less deserved the charge of writing without
observing, or of being a ‘paper philosopher.’ Both
these books abound in stories of animals, and are full
of interest for anyone caring at all for ‘beasts,’ quite
apart from the special object of the books.

Lecturing and reviewing were, so to speak, pas-
times to him, and gave him little trouble. One
lecture given at the Royal Institution on ‘ The Mental

1 See p. 236.

1890 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 171

Differences between Men and Women’ drew upon the
head of the unlucky lecturer a great storm of indig-
nation—why, the writer of this memoir has never been
able to discover.

In May 1886, Mr. Romanes read a paper before
the Linnean Society on ‘ Physiological Selection, an
additional suggestion on the origin of species.’ This
paper was the outcome of many years’ study of the
philosophy of evolution, during which time he had
gradually been coming to the conclusion that natural
selection cannot be regarded as the sole guiding factor
in the production of species, but that there must be
some other cause at work in directing the course of
evolution.

The theory of natural selection rests on two
classes of observable facts: first, that all plants and
animals are engaged in a perpetual struggle for ex-
istence, there being in every generation of every
species a great many more individuals born than can
possibly survive; and secondly, that the offsprings, al-
though closely resembling the parent form, do present
individual variations. It follows, therefore, that those
individuals presenting variation in any way beneficial
to them in the struggle for existence will survive as
being the fittest to do so, Nature, so to speak, selecting ©
certain individuals of each generation, enabling them
not only to live themselves, but also to transmit their
favourable qualities to their offspring. If a special
line of variation is in some way preserved, there may
result a variety so fixed and so distinct from the
parent and collateral related forms as to constitute a
separate species.

Further, since the environment (7.e. the sum total
of the external conditions of life) is continually
changing, it follows that natural selection may slowly

172 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

alter a type in adaptation to the slowly changing
environment, and if in any case the alterations
effected are sufficient in amount to lead naturalists to
name the result a distinct species, then natural selec-
tion has transmuted one specific type into another.

Mr. Romanes pointed out that the theory of
natural selection only accounts for such organic
changes as are of wse to the species—by use signify-
ing life-preserving—that it is, in fact, a theory of the
origin and cumulative development of adaptations,
whether these be distinctive of species, or of genera,
families, classes, &c.

The question then arises, do species differ from
species solely in points of a useful character, as they
undoubtedly should do if natural selection has been
the sole factor in their formation? Investigation
shows that systematists recognise a species by a
collection of characters, the value of a character
depending not on its wtelity, but upon its stabelity ;
in fact, a large proportional number of specific cha-
racters, such as minute details of structure, form, and
colour, are wholly without meaning from a utilitarian
point of view. Investigation further shows that the
most general of all the ‘notes’ of a true species is
cross-infertulity, that is, the infertility of the offspring
of two individuals belonging to separate species:
this, it was urged, could not be due to the action of
natural selection. Lastly, apart from the primary
distinction of cross-infertility, and the inutility of so
many of the secondary specific distinctions, neither
of which can be explaimed by the action of natural
selection, Mr. Romanes was strongly of the opinion that
even if a beneficial variation did arise, the swamping
effects of free intercrossing would reabsorb it, and so
render evolution of species in divergent lines, as

1890 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 173

distinguished from linear transmutation, mmpossible.
This last difficulty can only be met by assuming that
the same beneficial variation arises in a number of
individuals simultaneously, for which assumption
our present knowledge furnishes no warrant. If
natural selection is brought forward as the sole factor
in the guidance of organic evolution, then he con-
sidered that these difficulties remain insurmount-
able ; if, however, it is regarded as a factor, even the
chief factor, then these difficulties vanish, it being
consistent, in the latter case, to hold the other
factor, or factors, responsible for an explanation of
the difficulties in question. It was the object of
this paper to suggest another factor in the formation
of species, which, although independent of natural
selection, was In no way opposed to it, and might be
called supplementary to it, and was at the same time
capable of explaining the facts, of the mutihty of
many specific characters, the cross-infertility of allied
species, and the non-occurrence of free imtercrossing.
Very briefly indicated, Mr. Romanes’ line of argument
is as follows:—Hvery generation of every species
presents an enormous number of variations, of which
only the ones that happen to be useful are preserved
by natural selection. The useless variations are
allowed to die out immediately by intercrossing.
Consequently, if intercrossing be prevented, there
is no reason why unuseful variations should not be
perpetuated by heredity quite as much as useful ones
when under the nursing influence of natural selection.
Thus, if from any cause, a section of a species is
prevented from intercrossing with the rest of its
parent form, it is to be expected that new varieties—
for the most part of a trivial and unuseful kind—
should arise within that section, and in time pass

174 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881-

into new species. This supposition is borne out by
the nature of the flora and fauna of oceanic islands,
which are particularly rich in peculiar species, and
where intercrossing was, of course, prevented with
the original parent forms by the action of the geo-
graphical boundaries.

However, closely allied species are not always, or
even generally, separated by geographical boundaries,
and the cross-infertility remains to be explained.
The cardinal feature of Mr. Romanes’ theory is that
the initial step in the origin of species is the arising
of this infertility as an independent variation, by
which free intercrossing with the parent form on a
common area is prevented, and specific differentiation
rendered possible. Innumerable varieties are known
to occur which do not pass into distinct species,
the reason being that this initial variation, that is,
incipient infertility whereby the swamping effects of
intercrossing might be obviated, was lacking, and the
variations became re-absorbed. That is, given any
degree of sterility towards the parental form which
does not extend to the varietal form, then a new
species must take its origin. Without the bar of
sterility, in Mr. Romanes’ opinion, free intercrossing
must render the formation of species impossible.
Mutual sterility is thus the cause, not the result, of
specific differentiation. As regards the occurrence of
this initial variation, the reproductive system is known
to be highly variable, its variability taking the form
either of increased fertility, or of sterility in all degrees,
and depending on either extrinsic causes (changes of
food, climate, &c.), or on an intrinsic cause arising in
the system itself.

From the nature of this additional factor at work

1890 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 175

in the formation of species, Mr. Romanes called his
theory ‘ physiological selection.’

Physiological selection is conceived of as co-
operating with natural selection, the former allowing
the latter to act by interposing its law of sterility,
with the result that the secondary specific characters
may be either adaptive or non-adaptive in character.

To Miss C. E. Romanes.
Aix-les-Bains: May 1886.

The Linnean Society paper went off admirably.
There was a larger attendance than ever I saw there
before. But this may have been partly due to the
president (Lubbock) having had a paper down for the
same evening. He was considerate enough to with-
draw it at the last moment so as to leave all the
evening formine. I spoke for an hour and a half, and
the discussion lasted another hour. The paper itself
I have brought with me here, and am now putting the
last touches upon it.

Probably I shall have to try the rat experiment
again, if the young ones show no signs of piebalding.
But look at them occasionally to see.

There would be no use in getting the parrot to
make a gesture sign at the same time as he makes a
verbal one ; for, as you say, he would only show that
he can establish an association between a phrase and
a thing (whether object, quality, or action), and about
this there is no question. The question is whether
he can use verbal signs, not only as stereotyped in
phrases (when they are really equivalent to only one

176 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881-

word), but as movable types, which he can transpose
for the purpose of expressing different ideas with the
same words.

He writes concerning a Junior Scientific Society
which had a meeting to discuss his theory :

‘The meeting was the best fun imaginable, the
paper was merely a statement of my theory by a
young man who made it very clear. got up and
expressed disapproval of the theory, but expressly
declined to argue, so I had merely to give him some
chaff. The young men highly enjoyedit. Afterwards
they were enthusiastic in their applause.

‘T have no doubt, if I had not been present, the class
would have had a very different impression both of me
and my theory.’

To Professor Meldola.

Geanies: September 16, 1886.

Dear Professor Meldola,—Physiological selection
seems to have brought a regular nest of hornets about
my head. If I had known there was to have been
so much talk about it at the British Association I
should have gone up to defend the new-born. If you
were there, can you let me know the main objections
that were urged? It seems to me there is a good
deal of misunderstanding abroad, due, no doubt, to
the insufficiency with which my theory has been
stated. In ‘studying’ the paper, therefore, please
keep steadily in view that the backbone of the whole
consists in regarding mutual sterility as the cause (or

1890 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 177

at least, the chief condition) instead of the result of
specific differentiation. This is just the opposite view
to that now held by all evolutionists, and, I believe,
by Darwin himself. (See ‘Origin,’ pp. 245-246 ;
‘Variation,’ ii. pp. 171-175.) Now, if this view be
sound, my theory is obviously not restricted to any
one class of causes that may induce mutual sterility.
Such cases may be either extrinsic or intrinsic as
_ regards the reproductive system ; they may be either
direct in their action on that system or indirect (e.g.
natural selection, or use and disuse, &c., producing
morphological changes elsewhere, which in turn react
on that system); therefore these causes may act
either on a few or on manyindividuals. Yet Wallace
does not seem to see this, but argues in the ‘ Fort-
nightly’ that they can only act on an individual here
and there.

I sincerely hope you will give your attention to
the subject, because the great danger I now fear is
prejudice against the theory on account of people not
taking the trouble to understand it. How absurd f
for example, giving that quotation from ‘Origin’ in
‘Nature,’ as evidence of Mr. Darwin’s having con-
sidered the theory! Read with its context, the pas-
sage is arguing (much against the writer’s desire) that
variations in the way of sterility with parent forms
cannot be seized upon (or perpetuated as specific dis-
tinctions) by natural selection. But physiological
selection says that such variations do not require to be
seized upon by natural selection. Therefore, so far as
the passage in question proves anything, it tends to
show that nothing could have been further from the

N

178 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

mind of the writer than a theory which would have
rendered his whole argument superfluous, and I can
scarcely believe that if the theory of physiological
selection had ever occurred to him, he would not have
mentioned it, if only to state his objections to it, as
he has done with regard to so many ideas of a much
less feasible character.

I write at length because I value your judgment
more than that of almost anybody else upon a subject
of this kind, and therefore I should like it to be given
with your eyes open Prejudice at first there must
be, but there need not be misunderstanding; and
private correspondence shows me that the theory has
already struck root in some of the best minds who
do understand it. Any explanation, therefore, will be
gladly given you by

Yours very truly,
Gro. J. RoMANEs.

To F. Darwin, Esq.
Geanies : November 5, 1886.

Dear Darwin,—I am much interested by the en-
closed, and therefore much obliged to you for letting
me see it. But it would have been made a better
‘answer’ if it had gone on to say something about
the relation of such an experiment (supposing it suc-
cessful) to the question of originating a species.
Some weeks ago I was planning with a friend a
closely analogous experiment, but designed to pro-
duce a ‘family’ which would be sterile towards the
majority of the parent form, or not only towards one
other ‘family.’ And it seemed to me that if this
could be done it would amount to the artificial

1890 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 179

creation of a new species by conscious selection of a
physiological kind.

But, as far as I can gather from the enclosed, the
idea seems to be that of experimenting on the con-
ditions leading to sterility; not that of regarding
sterility, however conditional, as itself the condition
of specific divergence. In other words, the passage
seems to go upon the supposition that sterility is the
result and not the cause of specific divergence. But
if so, I do not see that it affects the question whether
he ever contemplated the latter possibility.

I have just received Seebohm’s British Association
paper, which, except when it repeats Wallace’s objec-
tion about the doctrine of chances, elsewhere curiously
contradicts all the points in his criticism.

The editor of the ‘ Fortnightly’ tells me that a
further delay has arisen in bringing out my reply, on
account of Wallace desiring to answer it. For my
own part I think that all this fire of criticism at the
present juncture is a mistake. As yet the theory is
only a ‘suggestion,’ and, until tested, there can be no
adequate data for forming a definite opinion.

Therefore I regret the published opposition—those
who are in favour do not publish only because it may
tend to choke off co-operation in carrying out the ex-
periments ; and it was for the sake of securing assist-
ance in so laborious a research that I published the
suggestion in outline.

I wonder who Catchpole is? His answer in
‘Nature’ to Wallace won’t do.

Yours very truly,
Gro. J. Romanes.

N 2

180 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: January 7, 1887.

Dear Darwin,—Some time ago you write that I
ought to read a book or paper by Jordan about varieties
in relation to sterility. I cannot find any book or
paper of his at the L.S. library which treats of this
subject ; could you give me the name of his essay ?

I am making arrangements for trying whether
there are any degrees of sterility to be found between
well-marked and constant varieties of plants. But
as I have never done anything in the way of hybrid-
ising, perhaps you would be good enough to let me
know whether the enclosed plan of experimenting
represents the full and proper way of going to work.
I know that you do not believe in the object of it,
but, even supposing it to be a wild-goose chase, there
would be no harm in your telling me the best way to
run. Then, whether the results prove positive or
negative, it will not be open for any one to doubt
them on the ground of any fault in the method.

Do any objections occur to you ve my answer to
critics in the ‘Nineteenth Century’? Of course I
might have said more about the swamping effects of
free intercrossing (which appears to me the only
point in which I deviate at all from the ‘ Origin of
Species’), but it is much too large a subject to be
dealt with in a review. My greatest difficulty here
is to conceive the possibility of differentiation (as
distinguished from transmutation in linear series)
without the assistance of isolation in some form or
another.

Yours very truly,
Geo. J. Romangs.

1890 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 181

Dear Darwin,—Criticism of an intelligent kind is
what I feel most in need of, and therefore it is no
merit on my part to like it when it comes.

The point about the combined action of natural
and physiological selection is, after all, a very sub-
ordinate one, and, as I said in ‘ Nature’ some weeks
ago, is the most highly speculative and least trust-
worthy part of the theory. Moreover, it is the only
part that is directly opposed to an expressed conclusion
in the ‘Origin,’ though, even here, the opposition
is not real. If natural selection can do anything
at all in the way of bringing about sterility with
parent forms, it can only do so by acting on the type
or whole community (for I quite agree with the
reasoning in the ‘Origin,’ that it cannot do so by
acting on individuals) ; and whether natural selection
could in any case act on a type is a question which
your father has told me he could never quite make
up his mind about, except in the case of social
hymenoptera and moral sense of man.

You will see what I mean by ‘secondary varia-
tions’ by looking at page 366 of my paper. It is
merely a short-hand expression for all other specific
differences save the sexual difference of sterility. My
view is that these secondary differences are always
sure to arise sooner or later in some direction or another
wherever a portion of a species is separated from the
rest, whether by geographical or physiological isolation,
which, indeed, as regards the former, is no more than
you (following Weismann, &c.) acknowledge. Now, to
me it seems obvious that Weismann’s ‘ variations ’
(ue. slight changes in the form of shells) cannot

182 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1g81-

possibly be themselves my ‘ physiological sports,’
although they may very well be the consequences of
such a sport leading to physiological isolation, and so
to independent variation in two or three directions
simultaneously, till afterwards blended by inter-
crossing. And my reason for thinking this is that
‘Weismann’s variations’ always arose in crops at
enormously long intervals of time. On the mere
doctrine of chances it therefore becomes impossible
to suppose that each of these variations was due to
a separate physiological sport, although it is easy to
see how each crop of them might have beenso. For,
if not, why should they always have arisen in crops,
each member of which was demonstrably fertile with
the other members of that crop, while no less
demonstrably sterile with the original parent form ?
Therefore, what I see in these facts is precisely what,
upon my theory, I should expect to see, viz. first, a
‘primary variation,’ or ‘ physiological sport,’ arising
at long intervals; secondly, closely following upon
this, a crop of ‘secondary variations’ in the way of
sight morphological changes affecting two or three
different ‘strains’ simultaneously; and thirdly, an
eventual blending of these strains by intercrossing
with one another without being able to intercross
with the surrounding and (at first) very much more
numerous parent form.

But I can now quite understand why you thought
these facts were ‘dead against’ me; you thought
that every single slight change of morphology must
(on my theory) have had a separate ‘ physiological
sport’ to account for it. This, however, most em:

1290 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 183

phatically is not my theory. Physiological isola-
tion I regard as having morphological consequences
precisely analogous to those of geographical isolation ;
and you would not think of arguing that there must
be a separate geographical isolation for every slight
change of structure—for example, that a peculiar
species of plant growing on a mountain top must
have had one isolation to explain its change of
form, and another isolation to explain its change of:
colour.

Lastly, if you will look up Hilgendorf’s paper
about these snails of Steinheim, I think you will find
it impossible to suppose that all these little changes
(thus arising at long intervals in crops) can have
been useful. Or, if you can still doubt, look up the
closely analogous but much larger case of the ammo-
nites investigated by Neumayr and Wurtenberger.

What I meant about the sexual system being
specially lable to variation is, that it is specially
lable to variation in the way of sterility. In other
words, changed conditions of life more readily effect
variations in the primary functions of the sexual
system than they do in general morphology. But at
the same time, I quite agree with your view that in
the last resort all changes of structure may be
regarded as due to variations of this system. And,
as you will see by turning to pp. 371-72 of my paper,
important capital is made out of this doctrine.

Now about making too much of the inutility of
specific characters; if I do so, it is erring on the
side of natural selection; for it clearly follows from
this theory that, if there are any useless struc-

184 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881--

tures at all, they ought to occur with (greater ?)
frequency among species, where (as?) yet natural
selection has not had time to remove them. But I
cannot think I have here unduly favoured natural
selection. For although there are not a few instances
of apparently useless structures running through even
an entire class (as the ‘ Origin’ remarks), these are
not only infinitely less numerous than apparently
useless structures in species, but are also very much
more rarely trivial.

Now the latter fact, coupled with that of the
ereatly wider range of their occurrence, appears to
me intensely to strengthen ‘the argument from
ignorance,’ 2.e. to give us much more justification for
believing that they are now, or once were, of use.
For in the case of species, the ‘once were’ possibility
is virtually excluded.

A propos to this point, I do not believe that any-
one yet has half done justice to natural selection in
respect of its action subsequent to the formation of
species—at least, not expressly. But I must shut
up.

I should greatly like to see Jordan’s paper. Sir
J. Hooker and Professor Oliver have sent me refe-
rences to literature, but neither of them mentions
this.

Why my answer to Wallace has not appeared in
this month’s ‘ Fortnightly ’ I am at a loss to under-
stand. The editor bullied me with letters and
telegrams to have it ready in time, till I laid every-
thing else aside, and sent him back the proof on
the 15th.

1890 LECTURESHIP AT EDINBURGH 185

This new theory roused the public interest (so far
as the scientific public were concerned) and produced
much criticism.

There is a scientific orthodoxy as well as a theo-
logical orthodoxy ‘plus loyal que le roi,’ and by the
ultra-Darwinians Mr. Romanes was regarded as
being strongly tainted with heresy.

The ‘Times’ devoted a leader in August 1886 to
the theory, and the president of Section D at the
British Association at Bath in the same month also
criticised it.

A sharp discussion took place in the columns of
‘Nature,’ and itis characteristic of those who took the
shief part in this controversy that their friendly
relations remained undisturbed. Mr. Wallace criti-
eised the theory in the ‘Fortnightly,’ and Mr.
Romanes wrote an article in the ‘ Nineteenth Century ’
describing his beliefs on the subject. This theory was
very close to his heart, and perhaps no part of his work
was left unfinished with more keen regret.

He planned a course of experiments on plants in
an alpine garden which, through the kindness of M.
Correvon, Professor of Botany at Geneva, he was able
to begin on a plot of ground near Bourg St. Pierre, on
the great St. Bernard.

Other work diverted him a good deal from this,
but Mr. Romanes had always large plans of work,
looking forward through a course of years.

There were some experiments on the power dogs
possess of tracking by scent, in the autumn of 1886.

With this year came the appointment to a Lec-
tureship in the University of Edinburgh on ‘The
Philosophy of Natural History.’! This lectureship

1 Through the kindness of Lord Rosebery.

186 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881-

Mr. Romanes held for five years, and he enjoyed the
fortnight’s residence in Edinburgh it involved, and
the meetings with Edinburgh people. He gave to his
class a course on the History of Biology, and then
proceeded to take them through a course of lectures
on the Evidences of Organic Evolution, on the theo-
ries of Lamarck, of Mr. Darwin himself, and on post-
Darwinian theories. These lectures he worked up
into the three years’ course he gave as Fullerian Pro-
fessor at the Royal Institution, with many additions
and alterations. The substance of them now appears
in ‘ Darwin and after Darwin,’ parts i.andii. A third
volume was to have been devoted to Physiological
Selection, and enough was prepared in the form of
notes to justify publication.

At the end of 1886 there fell on the Romanes
family a bitter sorrow. Of the Geanies ‘ brother-
hood,’ the brightest and merriest, a remarkably hand-
some, joyous girl, absolutely unselfish and sweet,
most dearly loved and loving, was the first to die.
Her death was a terrible sorrow not only to her own
immediate circle of relations, but to the friends to
whom she had been as a very dear sister. On Mr.
Romanes this death, so sudden and so startling,
made a deep and lasting impression. From this
time more and more he turned in the direction of
faith, and his feelings found an outlet in poetry more
frequently and more effectually than before.

To Miss C. E. Romanes.
Edinburgh: Christmas Day, 1886.

My dearest Charlotte-—The time has come when
it is some relief to write, but how shall I begin to tell

1890 A GREAT SORROW 187

the sadness of the saddest tragedy that has ever been
put together? First the hours of fluctuating hope,
and then the growing darkness of despair. She had
previously asked whether Ethel and G. J.' had come
down from London, and on being told that we were
in the house was so glad. We were admitted at night,
and only had to watch for three hours the peaceful
breathing,: slower, slower, slower, until the last. Oh,
theunearthly beauty of that face! Nothing I have ever
seen in flesh or in marble—nothing I could have ever
conceived could approach it. But try to picture it
as you knew it in life changed into something so yet
more beautiful that it seemed no longer human, but
the face of the angel that she was. Then in one room
her little child, in another her mother, utterly broken
by illness. For my own part I have never had a
grief so great:as this. Even in our sister’s case there
were elements of mitigation ; but here absolutely none.
Oh, it is bitter, bitter; so much of life’s happiness
emptied out and Hdith, our own Kdith, no longer
here !

In memory of this friend Mr. Romanes wrote a
little poem called ‘To a Bust,’ and from this a few
lines are given.

There is one point to which the writer of this
memoir would like to call attention.

Mr. Romanes was incapable of exaggeration, of
writing for effect, of insincerity. What he wrote he
felt, and his very simplicity and sweetness of character,
his childlike trust in the sympathy of others, made

1 One of Mr. Romanes’ numerous pet names,

188 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES

1881—

him unreserved to his friends, to those whom he

loved.
‘Upon that Christmas Eve
We saw thee pass away,

We heard the music of thy parting breath ;
We saw a light of angels in thy face—

A beauty so ineffable, that Death

Was changed into a minister of Grace:

The mountains in their autumn hues,

Of mountain reds and mountain blues,

With heather and with highland bells,

Await thy step on hills and fells ;

The spongy peat and dewy moss

Remember where we used to cross—

Remember how they loved thy tread,

Make for thy steps their softest bed:

The murmuring streams are calling thee,

The woodlands sigh in every tree ;

Yet when I walk upon the shore,

The waves are whispering—nevermore !

Mournfully, mournfully whispering, they,
Whispering, whispering every day,

Thy soul in their waters, thy breath in their spray,

Thy spirit still speaking in all that they say.
They knew thee well, those weedy rocks,
And now they rear their rugged blocks

When I pass by,

To ask me why
They never feel thy tender hands ;
And all the yellow of the sands

Is spread to greet

Thy tireless feet,

Which loved to walk them when the tide was low.

Now when I walk alone,
To hear the ocean moan,
The sea-birds circling round
Sweep almost to the ground,
And peep and pry above my head to know

1890 SOCIAL LIFE 189

Why thou dost never come,
To watch them flying home,
Upon the purple breast,
Where daylight sinks to rest.’

The Journal 1887, 1888, and 1889 is full of men-
tion of pleasant dinners and meetings with interesting
people. Youngas Mr. Romanes was, he attained long
before he died ‘that which should accompany old age—
honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,’ and as one
turns over the brief records of the Journal one is struck
withthe brightness ofhis outward life. He enjoyed con-
stant pleasant intercourse with men and women differ-
ing widely in pursuits, in opinions, in social position ;
he was full of plans for work, work which led him into
many different phases of intellectual life, and he had
every year an admixture of country life and country
pursuits, and the love for music and for poetry, which
increased each year, kept him from growing too
absorbed in science, from being at all one-sided. He
used sometimes to say he had too many interests, but
be that as it may, these interests gave him much
enjoyment and made him the most delightful of
companions.

A dear friend wrote of him after his death that
‘In the home few men have been more surrounded by
love, or have better deserved it,’ and few men have
been more loved by those outside hishome. He had an
unlimited capacity for loyal, true-hearted friendship.
As one most truly said, ‘ Romanes was the most loyal
of friends.’

There was something womanly in the tenderness
which he felt for anyone in trouble of mind or body,
and he was—what perhaps is even more rare—always
ready to put aside his own work to help other people.
He never grudged time or trouble to write lette: 3 or

190 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

testimonials; he was always ready to go and see
people who were sad or lonely; he was never too
busy to be kind. He was intensely loved by those
who served him, and few have been better served.
‘There were very few changes in his household, and
no one was ever more unwilling to give needless
trouble, to find fault without cause, than he, or more
ready to be really grateful for the ungrudging and
loving and devoted service he received. ‘You were
the nicest master I ever served,’ wrote a gamekeeper.
‘To think I have lived for fifteen years with him
and never heard a cross word,’ was said the day he
was taken from his home. In money matters he was
generous and almost lavish in readiness to give and
also to lend.

In Mr. Romanes there was a certain chivalrous
temper which could be roused to strong indignation
where it was encountered by injustice and oppression,
and the following letter to the ‘Times’ is one of
many such ;

To the Editor of the * Times.’

Sir,—On several previous occasions I have been
instrumental in obtaining remission of grievous sen-
tences at the police-courts by simply drawing atten-
tion in your correspondence columns to the cases as
they appear in your police reports. Adopting this
course, I think that the following, which appeared in
your issue of the 29th ult., requires some explana-
tion :

‘At Wandsworth, , aged 17, a weakly-looking
lad, residing at , was charged with stealing two tur-
nips, value 3d., growing in a field belonging to Mr. H.

1890 LETTER TO THE ‘TIMES’ se)

Bunce, at Merton. The prosecutor having lost a quan-
tity of produce, Police Constable Whitty was set to
watch the property, and saw the prisoner pull the
turnips and put them in his pocket. The accused
said he had had nothing to eat all day, and being very
hunery, he took the turnips! A previous conviction
was proved against him for felony, and he was now
committed by Mr. Denman for six weeks’ hard
labour.’

One would like to possess a good large field of
turnips, where each turnip can be fairly valued at
1id. But, taking this as the true value of the par-
ticular turnips in question, it appears that a starving
man is now serving a week’s hard labour for every
half-penny’s worth of the cheapest possible kind of
food that he could steal. It is, of course, very right
that he should have received some measure of punish-
ment, if only as a warning to others in the neighhour-
hood; but the measure of punishment which he did
receive seems, in the face of the matter, monstrous.
We are not told what was the ‘ felony’ for which this
‘weakly-looking lad’ was previously convicted ; but,
at any rate, we do know that on the present occasion
his theft was not for any purpose of gain. It must
have been, as he said, merely to alleviate the pains of
hunger, for otherwise he would have carried some
more capacious receptacle than either his pockets or
his stomach. On the whole, therefore, I say—and
say emphatically—this case demands some explana-
tion.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.,
LL.D.

192 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 18Si=

He was always ready to listen to what younger
men (and women) had to say, to talk to them about
his own subjects, his own work, to draw out their
abilities, to discuss their difficulties. What Mr.
Lionel Tollemache has written of Professor Owen is
not less applicable to him:

‘His innate modesty enabled him, when speaking
upon his own subject, so to let himself down to the
level of the ordinary listeners that they not only felt
quite at their ease with him, but fancied for the
moment that they were experts like himself.’

Journal, Jan. 1888.—Met Mr. Burne-Jones at
the Humphry Wards’, and had much interesting
talk anent Rossetti. Burne-Jones said Rossetti was
like an emperor; his voice was that of a king who
could quell his subjects. Also that he had a won-
derful memory for metre, but that Swinburne’s is
better still, inasmuch as he can remember prose.
On one occasion Swinburne recited to Burne-Jones
several pages of Milton’s prose which he had read
once twenty years previously. Burne-Jones went on
to say that Rossetti worked a great deal at his poetry,
and added, ‘That’s what you can do with words,
worry them as much as you like, but you can’t tease
a picture.’

March 9.—My. Leslie Stephen lectured on Cole-
ridge most admirably.

To Miss C. E. Romanes.
18 Cornwall Terrace: March 1, 1888.

My dearest Charlotte,—I find that neither of us
wrote yesterday, so I have two of your letters to
answer to-day.

1890 LIFE IN LONDON 193

You certainly seem to be having much the best
time of it as regards weather. Livery week and every
day here is worse than the last—the month which
has just ended having been the most savage February
in the memory of living Londoners. You will have
seen that poor Cotter Morison has not survived it.
He died last Sunday, just too soon to see his son, who
had been telegraphed home from India. He hada
great desire to live long enough to have had this
meeting, and it seems hard that when he struggled
on so long and painfully at the end, that he should
just have missed it. |

For Mr. Morison Mr. Romanes had a great regard,
and his death was a real sorrow.

Journal.—Sir F. Bramwell lectured on the ‘ Faults
of the Decimal System,’ calling it a lecture without
a point. He was killingly amusing. Dinner at Sir
H. Thompson’s, met Mr. J. Froude, Hannen, and
others.

We met the author of ‘The New Antigone’ the
other night at the Lillys’. He reviewed ‘ Mental
Evolution in Man’ ina RBR.C. paper the other day;
according to him it’s the Gospel of Dirt! Last
Sunday we went to hear Spurgeon; of fis personal
goodness there is no doubt.

May 14.—Stayed in Christ Church with the.
Pagets. G. had a most interesting talk with Aubrey
Moore. {Mr. Romanes had already, at the Aristote-
lian Society, met Mr. Aubrey Moore.| Lunched
on Sunday with the Max Millers. He showed us a

0

194 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

letter from Mr. Darwin most characteristic in its
humility and sweetness.

May 20.—Very fine sermon from Mr. Scott-
Holland on the Evidence of the Gospels. Tea at the
Deanery, and G. had a little talk with the Dean. |

There are frequent mentions now of Mr. Scott-
Holland, whom Mr. Romanes often went to hear.

In 1888 appeared ‘ Mental Evolution in Man,’

To Miss C. HE. Romanes.

Cornwall Terrace : May 18, 1888.

My own book is certain to make a ‘ commotion,’
if not among ‘the angels’ in heaven,! at least among
‘the saints’ upon earth. One of these same saints
has been behaving outrageously in print, and every-
body is full either of jubilation or indignation at
what he has been writing about Darwin and
Darwinism. F. Darwin asked me to do the replying,
and to-day I am returning proof of an article for the
‘Contemporary Review.’

I am ashamed to have been so long in writing,
but the truth is that, notwithstanding having put
down Finis to my MS., other things occurred to me
to add, which required recasting some of the chapters,
and so I have been fighting against time, and am
still.

It will not be long now before you have the
children.

1 This is in allusion toa minister of a small country parish in Scotland,

who prayed that there might be at this time, on account of this parish, ‘a
yery great commotion among the angels.’

1890 ROYAL INSTITUTION LECTURE 195

They are looking forward with great glee to Dun-
skaith ; but you must take care that they do not
make it too lively. I never saw such nice children
myself, but James may find them over-noisy when
they are particularly high-spirited. His godson is
the most comical chap that ever was born. He has
a passion for what he calls ‘loaded matches,’ 7.e.
matches unused, and so ready to ‘go off.’ Yesterday
his fingers were found to be burnt, Asked as to the
cause, he said he had lighted some loaded matches
and held his fingers in the flames so as to see if he
could ‘keep back crying.’ This he seems to have
done to his own satisfaction, and now wants to prove
his prowessin public. Little Ethel was found bathed
in tears a few days ago in a room by herself, and the
erief turned out to have been on account of the death
of the Emperor.!

You ask how the lectures are ‘going on.’ They
are ‘going on’ rather too well. Owing to Schifer
having been taken ill with bronchitis, I agreed to
relieve him of some engagements he had entered into
for giving lectures to a Highgate Institution. Con-
sequently I had to give two lectures on Tuesday (in
the afternoon at the Institution, and in the evening
at Highgate), and another yesterday, besides attend-
ing Council meetings, &c. The Institution lectures
give much more satisfaction than I anticipated, as I
thought the historical character of this year’s course
would appeal but to a small number of people. But
the audience keeps up to between one hundred and

1 Of Germany.
02

196 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881-

two hundred very steadily (usually one hundred and
fifty), and is in part made up of outsiders. But I
shall not be sorry when they are over, as it will leave
me more time for better work.

I am sorry that there still continue to be so many
ups and downs in your daily reports.’ The case is,
indeed, dreadfully tedious. How would you lke me
to run down to see you after my lectures are over ?

I enclose a photo which has just come from a man
who is photographing the Royal Society.

We are all well and flying about in all directions.
Such a time for dinners and concerts and all manner
of things; it is a wonder that we are living at all, as
old Jean? used to say.

To Mrs. Romanes.

Ernest is as right as ever he was. TI had all
three boys, and Gerald was more comical than can
be described. Jack made me take him all over
the house looking for mother. Then I went out to
get my dinner, when I made a great discovery.
After close upon thirty years’ residence in London, I
have at last found the perfect thing in the way of
a restaurant. For 7s. 6d. one can get the most ideal
of conceivable dinners (which has also the advantage
of being decidedly material). There was only one
deficiency, and that was yourself. This you must
supply. Indeed, I should like to repeat the whole
of this evening’s experience with you. For after the

1 His brother was ill. 2 An old nurse.

1890 DINING 197

dinner I went to St. James’s Theatre, and there saw
one of the best pieces of acting I have ever seen.
Yours in Zeit and Ewigkeit. Waggett! came in for
an hour, and I gave him my book.

I went to see Father Clarke.2 I had to go to a
vegetarian dinner, but secured a good luncheon at
the club first !

To J. Lomanes, Esq.
March 15, 1889.

I am glad you think so well of what I write, for it
often seems to me that, amid so many distractions
and in so many directions, I work to very little pur-
pose. The ‘Guardian’ reviewer? has written to me
a private letter, from which it appears that he is a
man [I know very well. He is Aubrey Moore, of
Oxford, and is considered one of the ablest men there.
I enclose his letter, which I failed to send before.

It is indeed a change for you to like being nursed,
and perhaps not altogether a bad one from the
character point of view. The only ‘ explanation’ I
can give is that of the ‘ adaptation of the organism to
changed conditions of life.’

Journal, May 1889.—Our dear Mr. Henry Pollock
is dead. Wisest, kindest of friends. Geanies will be
so sad now. So many who had helped to make it
bright are gone.

i The Rev. Philip Napier Waggett, now of Cowley St. John, who was
one of Mr. Romanes’ most intimate friends. Mr. Waggett’s scientific
attainments made him a valuable as well as a much-loved friend.

2 The Rev. R. Clarke, S.J.

* Mr. Aubrey Moore reviewed Mental Evolution in Man in the
Guardian.

198 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

About this time Mr. Romanes drew up a paper,
which is given here, as it may interest some readers.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.

Dear Sir or Madam,—While engaged in collecting
materials for a work on Human Psychology, I have
been surprised to find the greatuess of the differences
which obtain between different races, and even
between different individuals of the same race, con-
cerning sentiments which attach to the thoughts of
death. With the view, if possible, of ascertaining
the causes of such differences, I am addressing a
copy of the appended questions to a large number of
representative and average individuals of both sexes,
various nationalities, creeds, occupations, &e. It
would oblige me if you would be kind enough to
further the object of my inquiry by answering some
or all of these questions, and adding any remarks
that may occur to you as bearing upon the sub-
ject. |

In order to save unnecessary trouble, I may explain
that, in the event of your not carmg to answer any of
the questions, I shall not expect you to acknowledge
this letter; and that, if you should reply, answers to
many of the questions may be most briefly furnished
by underlining the portion of each, which by its repe-
tition would serve to convey your answer.

It is needless to add that the names of my corre-
spondents will not be published.

Iam yours very faithfully,
Grorce J. RomAnss,

-1899 QUESTIONS ON DEATH 199

(1) Do you regard the prospect of your own death
(a) with indifference, (8) with dislike, (c) with dread,
or (p) with inexpressible horror ?

(2) If you entertain any fear of death at all, is the
cause of it (A) prospect of bodily suffering only, (8)
dread of the unknown, (c) idea of loneliness and
separation from friends, or (D) in addition to all or
any of these, a peculiar horror of an indeseribablc
land ?

(3) Is the state of your belief with regard to a
future life that of (4) virtual conviction that there is
a future life, (8) suspended judgment inclining to-
wards such belief, (c) suspended judgment inclining
against such belief, or (p) virtual conviction that
there is no such life ?

(4) Is your religious belief, if any, (a) of a vivid
order, or (B) without much practical influence on
your life and conduct ?

(5) Is your temperament naturally of (4) a
courageous or (8) of a timid order as regards the
prospect of bodily pain or mental distress ?

(6) More generally, do you regard your own dis-
position as (A) strong, determined, and self-reliant ;
(B) nervous, shrinking, and despondent; or (c) medium
in this respect ?

(7) Should you say that in your character the
intellectual or the emotional predominates? Does
your intellect incline to abstract or concrete ways of
thought ? Is it theoretical, practical, or both? Are
your emotions of the tender or heroic order, or both ?
Are your tastes in any way artistic, and, if so,in what
way, and with what strength ?

(8) What is your age or occupation? Can you
trace any change in your feelings with regard to death

200 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881=

as having taken place during the course of your
life ?
(9) If ever you have been in danger of death, what
were the circumstances, and what your feelings ?
(10) Remarks.
(Signature.)

This communication well exemplifies the spirit in
which Mr. Romanes approached the problems of
animal faculty. He spent, indeed, much time and
labour in collecting and classifying the observations
and anecdotes which he published in ‘ Animal Intelli-
gence’; but he lost no opportunities of observing and
experimenting for himself. in this, as in other
departments of inquiry, his constant effort was to be
in direct and immediate touch with facts. His
observations on his own dogs, especially those which
he published in his article'on ‘ Fetichism in Animals,’
wherein he describes the effects on a terrier of the
apparent coming to life of a dry bone which the dog
had been playing with, and to which a fine thread
had been attached, and those which dealt with the
power of tracking their master by scent,’ further
exemplify his careful methods and his resort, wher-
ever possible, to experimental conditions. His ob-
servations, too, on the ‘homing’ of bees,*? by which
he showed that the insects find their way back
to the hive through their experience of the topo-
graphy and by knowledge of landmarks, rather
than through any mysterious innate faculty or sense
of direction, are the work of a scientific observer,

1 Nature, vol. xvii. p. 168. 2 Tbid. vol, xxxvi. p. 273,
° Tbid. vol. xxxii. p. 630.

1890 PSYCHOLOGICAL WORK 201

and very different from the chance tales of a mere
anecdotist.

The whole subject of comparative psychology had
a special and peculiar fascination for Mr. Romanes,
partly on account of its intimate connection with the
theory of evolution, and partly from its bearing on
those deeper philosophic problems which were never
long absent from his thoughts. His treatment of
the phenomena of instinct in ‘Mental Evolution in
Animals,’ and elsewhere, was both comprehensive
and exact, and still forms, in the opinion of com-
petent authorities, the best general account of the
subject that we have; though, had he lived to review
and consolidate his work, some changes would probably
have been introduced in view of later discussions
on the nature and method of hereditary transmission.
His arguments in ‘Mental Evolution in Man,’ in
support of the essential similarity of the reasoning
processes in the higher animals and in man, created
a stir, at the time of their publication, which was in
itself evidence that his critics felt that they had a
writer and thinker that must be seriously and
sharply met. He hoped by this work to win over
the psychologists to the evolution camp; and he
himself felt strongly that in some cases, when he
failed fully to convince them of the adequacy of his
method of treatment and of the arguments he
adduced, it was rather in matters of definition than
in matters of fact that the source of their differences
lay. He was somewhat disappointed that his terms
‘recept’ and ‘receptual’ for mental products inter-
mediate between the ‘percept’ and the ‘concept’
were not more generally accepted by psychologists,
since, in his matured opinion, they and the conception
they represent were eminently helpful in bridging

202 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

the debatable space between the intellectual powers
of man and the faculties of the lower animals.

It was Mr. Romanes’ intention to continue the
mental evolution series and to deal, in further instal-
ments of his work, with the intellectual emotions,
volition, morals, and religion. This intention, how-
ever, he did not live to fulfil, Huis further develop-
ment of mental evolution in the light of his later
conclusions in the region of philosophical and religious
thought would have been profoundly interesting.
But one’s regret that this part of his life work
remained incomplete is tempered by the recollection
that what he did complete was so worthily done.
For, in the words of Mr. Lloyd Morgan, which were
quoted with approval by Dr. Burdon Sanderson in
his Royal Society obituary notice: ‘by his patient
collection of data; by his careful discussion of these
data in the light of principles clearly and definitely
formulated ; by his wide and forcible advocacy of his
views; and, above all, by his own observations and
experiments, Mr. Romanes left a mark in this field of
investigation and interpretation which is not hkely
to be effaced.’

In 1889 Mr. Romanes attended the British Asso-
ciation which met that year at Newcastle. Here, he
and Professor Poulton had a long discussion on the
‘Inheritance of Acquired Characters’; he spoke so
much, and was so much en évidence, at this Association
that the Newcastle papers described him as a most
belligerent person.

He wrote afterwards from Edinburgh :

Things progress as usual. After my lecture I
played chess with Mrs. Butcher and dined with the

1890 LETTER TO PROFESSOR POULTON 203

Logans. Margaret, in telling me the pretty things
she had heard, drew from her husband the rebuke
that she was not judicious. So I told them your
estimate of my merits, and Charles ' was quite satisfied
that I was in good keeping.

You have made a ‘ philosophical’ mistake about the
dinner party to the R.’s which, of course, I imitated.
Butcher has given me a MS. of his to read on the
‘Psychology of the Ludicrous.’ Seems very good.

To Professor Poulton.

Newcastle: Monday, September 1889.

My dear Poulton,—I am very glad to receive your
long and friendly letter; because, although I have the
Ishmael-like reputation of finding my hand against
every man, and every man’s against mine, my blasto-
genetic endowments are really of the peaceful order.
Moreover, in the present instance the ‘row’ was not
one that affected me with any feelings of real opposi-
tion, although it seemed expedient to point out that
a somewhat hasty inference had not been judiciously
stated. Therefore, I take it, we may now cordially,
as well as formally, shake hands, and probably be
better friends than ever. In token of which I may
begin by furnishing the explanation of what was
meant by the passage in the ‘ Contemporary Review ’
to which you alluded.

I quite agree that Weismann’s suggestion about
causes of variability is an admirable one. Butit has

* C. Logan, Esq., W.S., who had married Mr. Romanes’ cousin.

£04 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

always seemed to me thrt it is comprised under
Darwin’s general category of causes internal to the
organism (or, in his terminology, causes due to ‘the
nature of the organism’). But besides this, he recog-
nised the category of causes external to the organism
(or the so-called Lamarckian principles of direct
action of environment, plus inherited efforts of use
and disuse). Now, anyone who accepts this latter
category as comprising vere cause, obviously has a
larger area of causality on which to draw for his
theoretical explanations of variability, than has a
man who expressly hmits the possibility of such
causes to the former category. This is all that I
had in my mind when writing the line in the ‘ Con-
temporary Review’ which led you to suppose that I
was expounding W. without having read him; and
although I freely allow that the meaning was one
that required explanation to bring out, you may
remember that this meaning had nothing whatever
to do with the subject which I was expounding,
and therefore it was that I neglected to draw it out.
You will observe that, so far as the present matter
is concerned, it does not signify what views we
severally take touching the vahdity of Lamarckian
hypotheses. The point is, that anyone who sees
his way to entertaining them thereby furnishes
himself with a larger field of causality for explaining
variations than does a man who limits that field
to causes internal to organisms—even though, like
W., he suggests an extension of the latter.

And now about the ‘ Atheneum.’ I fear you think
I have been taking an unfair opportunity of giving

1890 LETTER TO PROFESSOR POULTON 205

you a back-hander. In point of fact, however, I never
do such things; and the more reason I have for any-
thing like hitting back (which, however, is entirely
absent on the present occasion), the more careful
should I be to avoid any appearance of doing so in an
unsigned review. I neither wrote, nor have I read
the particular review in question.

Regarding articulation, read in my ‘ Mental
Hyolution in Man,’ Mr. Hales’ admirable remarks on
children having probably been the constructors of all
languages, I believe this theory will prove to be the
true solution of the origin of languages, as distin-
suished from the faculty of language. What you say
about the latter being blastogenetic, requires you to
unsay what is said by W.

Please let me know whether there is anything
that you see in my ‘cessation of selection’ different
from W.’s ‘ Panmixia.’ The debate to-day failed to
furnish any opposition.

Yours very sincerely,
G. J. Romayzs.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: October 21, 1889.

My dear Poulton,—Many thanks for your interest-
ing letter. From it I quite understand your views
about the relation between reproduction and repair ;
are they those of Weismann or altogether your own ?
And have they, as yet, been published anywhere? If
not, I suppose it is undesirable to allude to them in
public? The theory is ingenious, but seems to sail
rather near Pangenesis (as do many of the latter

206 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

amendments of germplasm by W.); and I should
have thought that the limbs of salamanders, &c., are
too late products, both phylogenetically and ontogene-
tically, to fall within its terms.

I also see better what you mean about Sphex.
But Darwin’s letter in ‘ Mental Evolution in Animals’
seems to me to meet (or rather to anticipate) the
‘ difficulty.” Of course, he did not suppose that the
insects’ knowledge of ‘success’ goes further than
finding out and observing the best place to sting in
order to produce the maximum effect. The analogy
of Cymphs is apposite; but is it the fact that there
is any species whose localisation is really compara-
ble with that of Sphex? Contrasting Weismann’s
account with Fabre’s, I should say not.

As for neuter insects (which you mentioned at
Newcastle), Darwin allows that they constitute one
of the most difficult cases to bring under natural selec-
tion, seeing that this has here to act at the end of a
long lever of the wrong kind, so to speak. Read
Perrier’s preface to French translation of ‘Mental
Evolution in Animals,’ and observe how good his
suggestion is, on the supposition that Lamarckian
principles have any applicability at all.

Lastly, at Newcastle you said something that
seemed to imply a doubt upon such facts as Lord
Morton’s mare. Do you really doubt such facts? I
cannot suppose it.

There are plenty of white stoats hereabouts, I
believe, though I have never actually seen them,
because I do not stay late enough in the year. I
have told my keeper to try to catch some without

1890 LETT“R TO PROFESSOR POULTON 207

injuring them, and, if he succeeds, to send them
straight tothe Zoo. The experiment would be a very
interesting one. But the keeper says that even here
the whiteness depends as to its intensity upon the
amount of snow in different seasons. He is most
positive about this; he says it depends upon snow,
and not on cold. However, I donot quote him as an
authority in science, although he certainly is an in-
telligent and observing man.

Regarding the Royal Institution, an after Kaster
course by you would be doubly interesting, because
before Easter I have to give one on the ‘ Post-
Darwinian Period,’ which will be mainly concerned
with Weismann. Your lectures might then serve as
a counter-irritant, therefore I will do anything I
ean to bring them about, only, not being on the
managing body, I can help merely by backing any
application you may make. And, of course, there
ought to be no difficulty about it. Only let me know
if you should want backing.

Would it not be worth while to get also some
mountain hares for observation at the Zoo? These, I
think, I could get.

Yours very truly,
Gro. J. Romanss.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: October 15.
Would you mind sending me the part of your MS.
dealing with Sphex? I do not know that I quite
caught your objection to my difficulty, and want to
allude to it in lectures which I am now preparing for
my Edinburgh class.

208 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881=

Also, did I correctly understand you to say that
you refused to acknowledge any fundamental identity
between processes of reproduction and those of repair ?
For this identity is to my mind the most important
of all objections to W.’s theory.

G. J. Romanzs.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: December 3, 1889.

My dear Poulton,—I returned here a day or two
ago, and now send you my copy of Perrier’s remarks
about the neuters of hymenopterous insects. But
he said a good deal more in. subsequent and private
correspondence. His preface, however, will serve to
show you the general tone of argument.

With regard to Panmixia, it occurs to me that
very likely you have not seen all that I wrote upon it,
as the three papers were scattered over several months
in ‘Nature.’ The following are the references: Vol.
ix. pp: 361, 440; vol. x: p. 164,

You will see that I took up a decided stand upon
the principle of Panmixia not being able altogether
to supersede that of disuse. This was for the reasons
stated in my last letter; and I still see no further
reason for changing the opinion that was then formed
under the influence of Darwin’s judgment.

With reference to the difference that you alluded
to—and which, as far as I can see, is the only differ-
ence between Weismann’s presentation of the prin-
ciple and my own—I enclose an extract from the
lecture which I have just been giving in Edinburgh.
From this extract I think you will see that the one
point of difference does not redound to the credit of

1899 WEISSMANN’S THEORY 209

Weismann’s logic. After reading the extract in
conjunction with the papers in ‘ Nature,’ perhaps you
will let me know whether you now understand my
view any better, or still believe that the cessation of
selection alone can reduce the average of a useless
organ below fifty per cent. of its original size—so
long, that is, as the force of heredity continues unim-

paired.
G. J. Romanes.

Some further letters to Mr. Thiselton Dyer and
to Mr. F’. Darwin follow.

To Professor Thiselton Dyer.
December 20, 1888.

Dear Dyer,—Would you mind sending me on a
postcard the name of the genus of plants the con-
stituent species of which you alluded to in the train
as being mutually fertile, and also separated from
one another topographically ? I want to get as many
of such cases as I possibly can, so, if any others occur
to you, please mention them likewise.

By reading pages 401 and 404 of my paper, you
will see why such cases are of quite as much impor-
tance to me as the converse, viz. where closely allied
species inhabiting continuous areas are more or less
mutually sterile (see p. 392).

If you have hitherto failed to apply these converse
tests to my theory, I cannot conceive by what other
principle you have sought to test it. Pray read the
passages referred to, which present the shortest

P

210 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

summary of what I regard as the very backbone of
my evidence.

If your large knowledge of geographical distribu-
tion should enable you to supply me with specific
cases of the general principle mentioned by Darwin in
the quotation given on page 392 (‘ Origin of Species,’
6th ed., pp. 134-5), I should much like to try experi-
ments on the sterility which I should expect to find
between these interlocking species.

It seems comical to ask a scientific opponent for
assistance, but the fact of being able to do so
proves the superiority of science to politics.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: December 27, 1888.

Iam most glad that in your last letter you deal
with what I consider the real ‘ question ’—viz. not
whether degrees of sterility obtain among a large
proportional number of species, but whether there is
any such correlation between them and absence of
isolation of other kinds as my theory would expect.
And in dealing with this question you hit upon
precisely the two greatest difficulties which I have
myself concluded lie against the theory. The first
is about areas now discontinuous having been once
continuous, and our being so often unable to say
whether or not such has been the case. But this
difficulty is one that lies against verification of the
theory, not against the theory itself. It wasin view
of this difficulty that I mentioned oceanic islands as
furnishing the best flora for trying experiments upon ;
but since I published the paper, I have not been able to

1890 OBJECTIONS TO THEORY CONSIDERED 211

hear of any botanists visiting islands. Should you
ever hear of any you might let me know.

The second difficulty is one that lies against the
theory itself, and has always seemed to me most
formidable. But as nobody else has ever mentioned
it, | have not hitherto done so, as I want to work it
out quietly. I allude to your remark about the ex-
traordinary differences that obtain among different
genera with regard to the capability of intercrossing
exhibited by their constituent species. This, I
confess, has from the first appeared a tremendous
objection to my theory. On the other hand, I have
taken comfort from the consideration that besides
being a tremendous objection, it is also a tremendous
mystery. For, as it must admit of some explanation,
and as this explanation must almost certainly have
to do with the sexual system, it becomes not
improbable that when found the explanation may
square with p.s. That the difference in question is
functional and not structural (or physiological as
distinguished from morphological) seems to be proved
by the fact that in some cases it obtains as between
the most closely allied genera, being, e.g., most
strongly pronounced of all between Geranium and
Pelargonium. Even quite apart from my own theory,
it seems to me that this is a subject of the highest
importance to investigate.

As regards sexual selection I allow, of course, that
the ‘law of battle’ is a form of natural selection.
But where the matter is merely a pleasing of esthetic
taste, and the resulting structures therefore only

ornamental, I can see nothing ‘advantageous’ in the
P2

212 GHORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

sense of life-preserving. On the contrary, in most
cases such structures entail considerable expenditure
of physiological energy in their production. On this
account Darwin says that nat. sel. must impose a
check on sexual selection running beyond a certain
point of injuriousness (‘D. of M.,’ p. 227). Now,
physiological selection is never thus injurious; and
although it is a ‘form of isolation,’ the isolation is
neither so extreme nor of such long continuance as
the ones you compare it with. Moreover, the environ-
ment (therefore all other or external conditions of life)
remains the same, which is not the case under the
other forms of isolation. Provided that the physio-
logical change is not zm ztself injurious, I do not see
why physiologically isolated forms should be less fit
than those from which they have been separated,
though I can very well see why this should be the
case with such geographically isolated forms as you
mention, for there the schooling is different. Lastly,
physiological selection, if not in itself injurious, does
not require that its children should be ‘ protected
against the struggle for existence.’ On the contrary,
as I say in my paper, it is calculated to give this
strugele a better chance than ever to develope adap-
tive character in the sexually isolated forms, because
the swamping effects of intercrossing are diminished.

But I really did not intend to afflict you with
‘another jaw of this kind. I am, however, very glad
that we now understand each other better than we
did. At all events on my side I think I now know
exactly the poimts which I have to make good if
Nature is so constituted as to admit of my theory.

1890 EXPERIMENTS IN GRAFTING 213

One thing only I have forgotten to say, viz. that
nothing can be argued against the theory from the
fact of hybridisation occurring in cases where,
according to the theory, it ought not to occur. This
argument only becomes valid where it is found that
the resulting hybrids are fertile. In relation to the
theory, a sterile hybrid is all the same as a failure to
Cross. Yours very sincerely,
G. J. Romanss.

P.S.—I forgot to ask youif there would be any
facilities in spring at Kew for repeating Adam’s graft
of purple on yellow laburnum. I want to try this
experiment in budding on a large scale because of its
importance on Weismannism, should the resuls of
any of the grafts go to corroborate Adam’s account
of the way in which he produced the hybrid. If you
agree to the experiments being tried at Kew, perhaps
you might let me know whether there are any purple
laburnums already in the gardens, or whether I
should get the material over from France. But in
that case you might also let me know to whom in
France or elsewhere I had best apply. However,
do not bother to answer any other parts of this
tremendous letter, these we can discuss in conversa-
tion hereafter. A postcard to answer this postscript,
however, is desirable, as then it might be possible to

get matters in train for next budding season.
G. J. RB.

I should much like to meet Churchill. ‘Will you
remember to tell me when he comes ?

214 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

To F. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: January 20, 1889.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your long letter.
I thought you might have had some notes or memo-
ries of conversations, to show in a general way what
the ‘line’ would have been.! If so, of course I should
not have said that my sayings were inspired, but
should myself have known that I was not going
astray.

The line I am going to take is:

Ist. Even assuming, for sake of argument, that
heightened colour is correlated with increased vigour,
Wallace everywhere fails to distinguish between bril-
hancy and ornament ; yet it is the disposition of colours
in patterns, &., that is the chief thing to be explained.

2nd. In many cases (e.g. peacock’s tail) the pattern
is only revealed when unfolded during courtship.
Besides natural selection could not be such a fool as to
develope large (physiologically expensive) and weighty
(impeding flight) structures like this—stags’ antlers,
&c., merely as correlates of vigour.

ord. There is not much in Wallace’s merely
negative difficulty about our not knowing what goes
on in the mind of a hen, when we set against that
difficulty the positive fact that we can see what does
go on in the mind of a cock—display, antics, song, &c.

4th. To say that ‘each bird finds a mate under any
circumstances ’ is merely to beg the whole question.

1 Of Mr. Darwin.

1s90 OBJECTIONS TO THEORY CONSIDERED 215

5th. There remains Wallace’s jealousy of natural
selection. He will not have any other ‘factor,’ and
therefore says natural selection must eat up sexual
selection like the lean kine have the fat kine. But
natural selection alone does not explain all the
phenomena of sexual colouring, courtship, &c., and
sexual selection is exactly the theory that does.
Wallace’s jealousy, therefore, is foolish and inimical
to natural selection theory itself, by forcing it into
explanations which are plainly false.

My own belief is, that what Lankester calls the
‘pure Darwinians’ are doing the same thing in
another direction. By endeavouring, with Wallace
and Weismann, to make natural selection all in all as
the sole cause of adaptive structure, and expressly
discarding the Darwinian recognition of use and dis-
use, I think they are doing harm to natural selection
theory itself. Moreover, because I do not see any
sufficient reason as yet to budge from the real
Darwinian standpoint (Weismann has added nothing
to the facts which were known to Charles Darwin),
the post-Darwinians accuse me of moving away from
Darwinian principles. But it is they who are mov-
ing, and, because they see a change in our relative
positions, affirm that it is I. In point of fact, my
position has never varied in the least, and my con-
fession of faith would still follow, in every detail, that
given on p. 421 of ‘Origin,’ 6th ed., which, it seems
to me, might also be regarded as prophetic no less
than retrospective.

Tf I did not say all this in my paper in physio-
logical selection, it is only because I never conceived

216 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 18S1—

the possibility of my being accused of trying to under-
mine natural selection ; and, therefore, I only stated
as briefly as possible what my relations were to it.
Yet it seems to me that this statement was clear
enough if Wallace had not come down with his pre-
posterous ‘Romanes versus Darwin.’ At all events,
it is not in my power—or, I believe, in that of any-
body else—to express more strongly than I now have
in ‘ Nature,’ in answer to Dyer, what I do hold about
natural selection in its relation to physiological selec-
tion, sexual selection, and other subordinate principles.
Of course, if there were a debate on these lines at the
B.A., I should get my part of it published somewhere.
As far as I can honestly see, my ‘ position’ is abso-
lutely identical with that in last editions of ‘ Origin ’
and ‘Descent,’ with, perhaps, a ‘tendency’ to lay
more stress on levelling influence of Panmixia.

Re physiological selection. I have sent Correvon,
of Geneva, £50 to help in founding a garden in the
Alps, which will have the proud distinction of being
the highest garden in the world. He is a splendid
man for his knowledge of Alpine flora, and besides, is
strongly bitten with a desire to test physiological selec-
tion. Of course I shall do the hybridising experiments
myself, but he will collect the material from the
different mountains—~z.e. nearly allied species, topo-
graphically separated, and therefore, I hope, mutually
fertile. The converse experiments of nearly allied
species on common areas may be tried in England.

I am making arrangements for repeating on an
-extensive scale experiments on budding purple labur-
num on yellow, to see if it is possible to reproduce

1890 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 217

‘Adam’s eye’ hybrid. If so, it would now be of more
importance than ever in relation to Weismann. By
the way, he is sorely put to it in the case of plants
which reproduce themselves not only by cuttings, but
even by leaves. Here he is bound to confess that his
germ-plasma occupies all the cellular tissue of the
entire plant. But if so, how in the world does his
germ-plasma differ from gemmules ?

There! I did not intend to write you anything
of a letter when I began, but have gone on and on
till it is well for you that the second sheet is coming
to an end.

Yours ever,
G. J. Romanes.

P.S.—Any contributions to Correvon’s garden
(however small) would be thankfully received by him.
Possibly his garden may be of some use to English
botanists ; if so, you might send the hat round, and
collect any coppers that fall.

To Professor Thiselton Dyer.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: January 7, 1889.

My dear Dyer,—Knowing what a busy man
you are, I never expected you to answer my last
letter, and therefore it has come as an agreeable sur-
prise. For no doubt you will believe me when I say
that I value much more communications which are
opposed to physiological selection than those in its
favour ; the former show me better what has to be.
done in the way of verification, as well as the general

218 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

views which may be taken on the subject by other
minds. And most of all is this the case when anyone
hike yourself gives me the benefit of opinions which are
formed by a trained experience in botany, seeing that
here I am myself such a sorry ignoramus. And I
willingly confess that your strongly expressed opinion
has seriously shaken my hopes for physiological selec-
tion, notwithstanding that some German botanists
think otherwise. Nevertheless, I still think that it
is worth while to devote some years to experimental
testing, and then, if the results are against me—well,
I shall be sorry to have spent so much time over a
wild flower chase, and to have kicked up so much
scientific dust in the process; but I will not be
ashamed to acknowledge that Nature has said
No.

And now for your last letter. Read in the light
of subsequent experience, I have no doubt that I
ought to have expressed myself with more care while
writing my paper. But, to tell the honest truth, it
never once occurred to me that I of all men could be
suspected of trying to undermine the theories of
Darwin. I was entirely filled with the one idea of
presenting what seemed to me ‘a supplementary
hypothesis,’ which, while ‘in no way opposed to
natural selection,’ would ‘release the latter from the
only difficulties ’ which to my mind it had ever pre-
sented. Therefore I took it for granted that every-
body would go with me in recognising natural selec-
tion as the ‘boss’ round which every ‘other theory’
must revolve, without my having to say so on every
page. So, of course, by ‘other theory’ I did not mean

1890 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 219

that physiological selection was in my opinion the
only theory of the origin of species. Everywhere
throughout the paper, from the title-page to the con-
clusion, I represented it as an ‘additional suggestion,’
a ‘supplementary hypothesis,’ &c., &c. Sexual selec-
tion is in my view (as it is also in Darwin’s, Wallace’s,
and doubtless that of all evolutionists) one of the
‘other theories that have been propounded on the
origin of species.’ So is Lamarck’s theory, which
was considered by Darwin as more or less ‘supplemen-
tary’ to natural selection; and this is all that I meant
—or, I should say, could possibly be understood to
mean in view of the title-page, &c.—by speaking of
physiological selection as another theory of the origin
of species. It certainly is not the same thing as natural
selection or either of the ‘other theories’ just men-
tioned; but no less certainly it is not exclusive of any
of the three. Unquestionably it is as you say, and as
I myself said, an independent theory—z.e. not iden-
tical with, but additional to, that of natural selection.
But this is a widely different thing from saying that
it is in itself an exhaustive theory, which must there-
fore swallow up all or any ‘ others.’ In short, I abide
by the closing statement of my introductory para-
graph—viz. that the theory is an ‘attempt at sug-
gesting another factor in the formation of species,
which, although quite independent of natural selection,
is in no way opposed to natural selection, and may
therefore be regarded as a factor supplementary to
natural selection.’ Statements to the same effect
are indeed scattered through the entire paper; but,
of course, could I have foreseen the interpretations

220 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

which afterwards arose, I should have reiterated such
statements ad nauseam.
Sorry you cannot come to the B.A., or to dine,
but certainly do not wonder.
Yours very sincerely,
G. J. Romanes.

Lastly, about species not being able to exist as
species without the physiological isolation of physio-
logical selection (p. 403), the statement of course only
applies to nearly allied species occupying common
areas (see p. 404). If this statement is wrong, no
one has yet shown me wherein it is so. I fancy you
do not quite appreciate that by ‘sterility’ I always
mean (unless otherwise expressly stated) sterility om
some degree, and this not only with regard to the
fertile hybrids. It is by no means enough to point to
natural and fertile hybrids as cases opposed to phy-
siological selection unless it has been shown by
experiment through a generation or two that these
hybrids are fully fertile—z.e. as fertile as their parent
species. Now, experiments of this kind have rarely
been carried through. If you assume that the result
of carrying them through would be destructive of
physiological selection by proving that fertile hybrids
are, as a rule, fully fertile, and also (which is very
important) that in any cases where experiment may
show them to be so, further experiment would
fail to show that isolation has not been effected in
any other way (as by pre-potency, differences of
insect fertilisation, &c.)—in short, if you assume
that fertility is as complete between the two asso-

1890 PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION NL

ciated species as it is within each species, how is it
conceivable that they should continue to be distinct ?
In this connection it is well to consult Gulick’s paper
already referred to (especially p. 259, paragraph Ist)
on the theoretical side, and Jordan’s papers and
books -on the practical side. I have repeated the
latter’s observations on poppies, and find that where
any considerable number of individuals are concerned,
natural selection is not nearly so great a power in
this respect. (Even in cases where it happens that
in-breeding is necessarily confined to single herma-
phrodite individuals for numberless generations, the
handicapping is not fatal: witness flowers which
habitually fertilise themselves before opening—es-
pecially some species of orchids, which never seem
to do otherwise, notwithstanding the elaborate pro-
visions for cross-fertilisation in other species.) Now,
I believe most of all in what I have called ‘ collective
variation’ of the reproductive system in the way
of physiological selection, whereby, owing to some
common influence acting on a large number of indi-
viduals similarly and simultaneously, they all become
sexually co-adapted iter se while physiologically
isolated from the rest. This essential feature of the
theory seems to me entirely to remove the difficulty
about in-breeding, as well as that which Wallace
urged about the chances against a suitable meeting
of ‘physiological complements.’

As for my having attributed too much to the
swamping effects of intercrossing (Panmixia), this, I
aim convinced, is the one and only particular wherein
Ihave at all departed from the judgments of Darwin;

222 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

though, curiously enough, it is the particular on
which my critics have laid least stress when accusing
me of Darwinian heresy. But it is too big a question
to treat in correspondence. Gulick’s recently pub-
lished paper at the Linnean Society seems to me a
most important one in this connection, and I have
a large body of other evidence.

To F. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: January 8, 1889.

Dear Darwin,—Hate you, indeed! Why, I can-
not imagine any better service than that of stopping
a fellow from making a fool of himself, and I most
cordially thank you for having done so in this case.
The business was so completely out of my line, that
I did not know what was required. It seemed to
me that if I got any evidence of bending towards the
sparks, the only question I wanted to answer would
be answered, and, therefore, that it did not matter
a straw about temperature, moisture, and the rest.
Moreover, the results did not seem to me to be of any
importance, as they were just what might have been
expected, and, therefore, I doubted whether it was
worth while publishing a paper about them. Had
they gone the other way, and proved that the plants
would not bend to flashing light, I should have thought
it much more interesting. Lastly, the research was
80 expensive, costing £1 per day at the only rlace

‘ Mr. F. Darwin had pointed out some erroneous conclusions in a pro-
jected scientific paper.

1890 FLASHING LIGHT ON PLANTS 223

where I could get the requisite apparatus, and there
they shut up at night.

Of course, I will withdraw this paper, and, if you
think the thing is worth working out in all the details
you suggest, will do so. In that case, it would be
worth while to ascertain whether there would be any
electrical apparatus at Cambridge which I could get
the use of at a lower rate of profit to the owners. A
good-sized induction coil is really all that is required,
and they probably have this in the Cavendish. But
there is not one available in any of the London work-
shops, and so I had to go to Appes, inthe Strand. It
is suggested that the debate in Section D at the
British Association this year should be opened by me
on the question of utility as universal. Before I agree,
I should like to know what you think about the
‘Nature’ controversy which I have recently had with
Dyer, and out of which the present suggestion has
emanated. Perhaps we might arrange to meet some-
where soon to have a talk over the expediency of
such a debate at all, and the lines on which, if held, it
should run. Of course, physiological selection would
be carefully kept out. My object would be to show
the prime importance of natural selection as a theory
which everywhere accounts for adaptations.

Yours very sincerely,
G. J. Romanss.

May 27, 1889.
Herewith I return, with many thanks, a pamphlet
by Kerner, numbered 738.
In my experiments with electric spark illumina-

924 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES (Bei=

tion on plants, I notice that the seedlings, although so
wonderfully heliotropic, never form chlorophyll, even
if exposed to a continuous stream of sparks for 30
hours on end, while they will bend through 90°
in seven hours to single sparks following one another
at one per second. ‘This proves that there is no con-
nection at all between heliotropism and formation of
chlorophyll, or vice versa—a point which I cannot
find to have been hitherto stated. Do you happen to
know if it has been? If you do not happen to re-
member anything bearing on this subject, do not
trouble to search or to answer.

Wallace’s book’ strikes me as very able in many
parts, though singularly feeble in others—especially
the last chapter. He has done but scant justice to
Gulick’s paper. Had he read it with any care, he
might have seen that it fully anticipates his criticism
on mine. But I think he deserves great credit for
nowhere chuckling. From the first he has been con-
sistent in holding natural selection the sole factor of
organic evolution—leaving no room for sexual selec-
tion, inheritance of acquired characters, &c., &ec.
And now that he had lved to see an important
body of evolutionists adopting this view, there must
have been a strong temptation to ‘I always told you
so. Yet there is nowhere any note of this, or even
so much as an allusion to his previous utterances on
the subject.

1 Darwinism, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

1890 ON WEHISMANN’S THEORY 225

To E. B. Poulton, Esq.

Geanies, Ross-shire: November 2, 1889.

My dear Poulton,—Continuing our antipodal cor-
respondence, and taking the points in your last letter
sertatim, I quite saw that your theory of repair was
‘the logical outcome of Weismann’s’ (being, in fact, a
direct application of his views on phylogeny to the
case of repair); but I did not know whether the out-
come had been traced by him or by yourself. Now, I
understand, I may allude toitas yours. Again, what
I meant about regeneration of entire limbs, &c., was
that, to meet such cases, your diagram would require
modification in the way that you now suggest. Has
it occurred to you as an argument in favour of this
suggestion (i.e. that the ‘potentiality’ of somatic
germ-plasm may in such cases be arrested in its pro-
cess of ontogenetic diffusion), that Darwin has shown,
or at least alleged, that all such cases may be traced
to special adaptation to special needs, dangers, &c.—
so that the arrest may have been brought about in
these cases by natural selection ?

If you deem the ‘chief difference’ between Dar-
win’s and Weismann’s theory of heredity to be ‘ that
the one implies material particles and the other only
physical and chemical constitution,’ then, it seems to
me, Weismann’s theory will become identical with
Herbert Spencer’s—seeing that this is virtually the
only respect in which Spencer’s differs from Darwin’s.
But I think there is another and a much more
important respect in which W.’s theory differs from

Q

226 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881+

both these predecessors. However, to proceed to the
next point, I agree with you, that the sole object of
the Sphex stinging the larve is now to cause them
to ‘keep,’ and that natural selection must have
worked upon this for perfecting the instinct. But
the point is, what was the origin of the selective
stinging? If merely chance congenital variations,
would unity to billions express the chances against
their ever arising? Get some mathematician to cal-
culate—giving as data superficial area of caterpillar
on the one hand and that of nine ganglia on the other.
Even neglecting the consideration that the variation
must occur many times to give unaided natural
selection a chance to fix it as an instinct, the chances
against its occurring only once would be represented
by the following series, where z is the superficial area
of the caterpillar menus that of eight ganglia and

unity is superficial area of one ganglia:
1 Le Lol al onl elope

SS = OAS OSS RS ONS SSeS
>. Sirs >. Gath». lem Saree Cae >. Gayl 9). Gin sho. Gs ghd.

Tf, as I suppose, z may here be taken as = 100,000,
the chances against the variation occurring once
would be written in figures expressing unity to one
thousand million billion trillions. Of course I do not
rely on calculations of this kind for giving anything
like accurate results (mathematics in biology always
seems to me like a scalpel in a carpenter’s shop), but
it makes ne difference how far one cuts down such
figures asthese. ‘Therefore, if Lamarck won’t satisfy
such facets, neither do I think that Darwin minus
Lamarck can doso. We must wait for the next man.

-1890 ON WEISMANN’S THEORY 227

Iwill send you ‘ Perrier’ on my return to town next
month.

Lord Morton’s experience is so universally that of
all breeders of live stock, that I never knew anybody
ever doubted it. But, if they do, there is no reason
why they should not satisfy themselves on the point.
For my part I do not feel that the fact requires any
corroboration as regards mammals, though I have
some experiments going on with birds. Lastly, the
apparently analogous cases in plants are still worse
for Weismann’s theory, and they stand on the best
authorities.

I enclose a letter received by same post that
brought yours. It is from a former keeper of ming
who is now more in the moorlands. Other applications
are out, so I hope some of them will be successful.
Very little doubt it will prove to be temperature. I
found a dead stoat here to-day; it had not turned
white at all, but then the season is very mild.

The Secretary of the R.I. is Sir F. Bramwell,
Bart., F.R.S. You had better writeto him. Also to
his son-in-law, Victor Horsley, who is more of a
biologist. Tell Bramwell, if you like, that I think he
ought to jump at you..

Yours very truly,
G. J. Romans.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B. : November 6, 1889.

My dear Poulton,—Many thanks for your paper,
which is the clearest exposition I have yet seen of
Weismann’s views. But how about your allusion to
experiments in grafting ? As regards plants, there is a

a2

228 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881=

good deal of evidence as to the possibility of a graft-
hybrid. As regards animals, fifteen years ago I spent
an immensity of time in experimenting, and could not
then find that there was any literature on the subject.
Nobody who had grafted animal tissues had done so
with any reference to the heredity question, nor
do I know of any publications on the subject since
then.
Yours very truly,
G. J. Romans,

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B. : November 11, 1889.

My dear Poulton,—Although I spent more time
and trouble than I like to acknowledge (even to my-
self) in trying to prove Pangenesis between ’73 and
30, I never obtained any positive results, and did
not care to publish negative. Therefore there are no
papers of mine on the subject, although I may fairly
believe that no other human being has tried so many
experiments upon it. No doubt you will think that
I ought to regard this fact as so much negative evi-
dence in favour of the new theory; and, up to a
certain point, I do, only the issue between Pangenesis
wend Germ-plasm is not really or nearly so well defined
as Weismann represents, where the matter of experi-
ments is concerned; e.g. it is not the case that any
crucial test is furnished by the non-transmissibility of
mutilations ; Darwin did not set much store by them,
though Eimer and others have done so since. In
fact all the Germans on both sides, and all the
Hnglishmen on Weismann’s side, seem to me unjust
to Darwin in this respect.

1890 ON WEISMANN’S THEORY 229

Regarding the cessation of selection, the motive
that prompted my question to you was not the paltry
one of claiming priority in the enunciation of an ex-
ceedingly obvious idea. My motive was to assure my-
self that this idea is exactly the same as Weismann’s
Panmixia ; for, although I could see no difference, I
thought perhaps he and you did (from absence of
allusion to my paper, while priority is acknowledged
as regards a later one); and, if this were so, 1 wanted
to know where the difference lay. And the reason I
wanted to know this was because when my paper
was published, and Darwin accepted the idea with
enthusiasm, I put it to him in conversation whether
this idea might not supersede Lamarckian principles
altogether. (By carefully reading between the lines
of the paper itself, you will see how much this
question was occupying my mind at the time, though
I did not dare to challenge Lamarck’s principles zn toto
without much more full inquiry.) Then it was that
Darwin dissuaded me from going on to this point, on
the ground that there was abundant evidence of
Lamarck’s principles apart from use and disuse of
structures—e.g. instincts—and also on the ground of
his theory of Pangenesis. Therefore I abandoned the
matter, and still retain what may thus be now a pre-
judice against exactly the same line of thought as
Darwin talked me out of in 1873. Weismann, of
course, has greatly elaborated this line of thought ; but
what may be called the scientific axis of it (viz.
possible non-inheritance of acquired characters) is
identical, and all the more metaphysical part of it
about the immortality, immutability, &c., of a hypo-

230 ‘GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881=

thetical germ-plasm is the weakest part in my esti-
mation.

Now, the point I am working up toisthis. If there
be no difference between Panmixia and Cessation of
Selection, from what I have briefly sketched about it,
it follows that, had Darwin lived till now, he would
almost certainly have been opposed to Weismann.
This is not a thing I should lke to say in public, but
one that I should like to feel practically assured about
in my own mind.

Regarding the numerical calculations, I have not
got a copy of the ‘Nature’ paper here, but, so far as I
remember (and I think I am right), the idea was that
‘Economy of Growth’ would go on assisting Cessa-
tion of Selection till the degenerating organ became
‘rudimentary.’ In other words, reversal of selection
would co-operate with cessation of it.

This, as I understand it,is nowexactly Weismann’s
view; only he thinks that thus the rudimentary organ
would finally become extinguished. Here, however,
it seems to me evident he must be wrong. The
reasons are obyious, as I am going to show this week
to my Edinburgh class. Six lectures are to be devoted
entirely to Weismann, and when they are published
(as they will be this time next year), I think it will be
seen that Weismannism is not such very plain sailing
as Weismann himself seems tothink. Vines has anti-
cipated some of my points in his paper in ‘Nature’;
but I hope this may have the effect of letting me see
what answers can be given before I shall have to
pablish. Yours very truly,

G. J. Romangs.

-1890 THE ADDRESS AT TOYNBEE HALL 231

In the midst of these scientific labours and scien-
tific controversies, Mr. Komanes found time for other
thoughts and for other work.

_ At the beginning of 1889 he delivered an address
at Toynbee Hall on the Ethical Teaching of Christ,
of which the following is an extract:

‘The services rendered by Christ to the cause of
morality have been in two distinct directions. . The
first is in an unparalleled change of moral concep-
tion, and the other in an unparalleled moral example,
joined with peculiar powers of moral exposition and
enthusiasm of moral feeling which have never before
been approached. ‘The originality of Christ’s teach-
ing might in some quarters be over-rated, but the
achievement it was impossible to overrate. It is
only before the presence of Christ that the dry bones
of ethical abstraction have sprung into life. The
very essence of the new religion consists in re-
establishing more closely than ever the bonds be-
tween morality and religion. Oneimportant effect of
Christ’s teaching and influence has been the carrying
into effect of the doctrine of universalism, for pre-
viously the idea of human brotherhood can not be
said to have existed. Again, in the exaltation of
the benevolent virtues at the expense of the heroic,
the change effected is fundamental and abrupt.
Christ may be said to have created the virtues of
self-abnegation, universal beneficence, unflinching
humilty—indeed, the divine supremacy of com-
passion. Whether Christ be regarded as human or
divine, all must agree in regarding the work of His
lite as by far the greatest work ever achieved in the

932 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881—

history of the human race. <A topic of great impor-
tance is the influence of Christ’s personality in secur-
ing the acceptance of His teaching. The personal
character of Christ is of an order swe generis, and even
the most advanced of sceptics have done homage to it.
The more keen the intellectual criticism, the greater
is the appreciation of the uniqueness of the person-
ality. Men may cease to wonder at the effect of
Christ’s teaching; for, given the wonderful person-
ality, all the rest must follow. Whatever answers
different persons may give to the questions, ‘“ What
think ye of Christ ? Whose son is He?” everyone
must agree that ‘“ His name shall be called Wonder-
rill

This brought on him two characteristic letters,
one from an Agnostic lady, blaming him for attach-
ing so much importance to Him whom she was
pleased to call ‘ The Peasant of Nazareth,’ the other
from Dr. Paget:

Christ Church, Oxford: January 14, 1889.

My dear Romanes,—I hope you will not think
me impertinent if I write a few words of gratitude
for the happiness which I enjoyed in reading to-day
even such an account of your address at Toynbee Hall
as the ‘Times’ gave me. There is always a risk of
impertinence in thanking a man for what he has said;
for of course he has said it because he saw it, and
thought he ought to say it, quite simply. But I may
just thank you for the generous willingness with which
you accepted such a task :—and for the light in which
you looked at it:—as an opportunity for saying so

1890 THE POEMS 233

unerudgingly, so open-heartedly, that which is clea
to you about our Lord. This must be, please God, a
real bit of help to others ; and I trust and pray that
it may return in help to you.

But how dark you were about it! I should have
been furious if I had been in London, and not there.

Please forgive me this letter ; and do not think it
needs any answer.

Affectionately yours,
Francis Pacer.

At the beginning of this year Mr. Romanes col-
lected his various poems and had them privately
printed. He writes to his sister:

February 1889.

Three weeks before the 11th I was wondering
what I should get as a wedding-day present to mark
the tenth anniversary. Ethel then chanced to say that
she wished my poems were published, so that she
could have them in type. This suggested to me the
idea of putting them into type for private circulation,
when they might serve at once as the required
wedding-present, and as a preliminary to publication
at any future time either by myself or, more probably,
by her or someone else. So I got an estimate from
the printer, and with an awful rush he set up the
whole in a week. Proof corrections occupied another
week, and the binding of a grand presentation copy
the third week. Thus I only had my present ready
a few hours before it had to be presented. Binding
the other copies occupied the time till I sent you

234 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881=

yours. In Ethel’s copy (which is awfully swell) I
have written a special sonnet, as I did in yours.

These poems, or rather a selection from them,
will be published, in accordance with the author’s
wish.

Of his poetry, his sonnets (which were privately
printed) seem the most successful. Various friends
saw the privately printed book, and the then Pro-
fessor of Poetry! at Oxford gratified Mr. Romanes
very much by his own kind words respecting them,
and also by submitting them to Lord Tennyson, who
spoke of them in kindly terms, as did also Dean
Church, Mr. Edmund Gosse, Mr. George Meredith,
and others. ‘'T'wo letters he received about his poems
are here given:

From the Dean of St. Paul’s.
Ettenheim, Torquay: February 26, 1889. -

My dear Mr. Romanes,—Thank you very much
for your kindness in thinking me worthy of your gift.
I am always glad to see science and poetry go together.
It was the way with the earliest efforts of natural
science, as Empedocles and Lucretius; and when the
strictest thinking of science is done, there is still
something more of expression and meaning, of
which poetry is the natural and only adequate
interpreter.

My acquaintance with your volume is as yet only
superficial. But I have been very much impressed by
‘Charles Darwin,’ and by the ‘ Dream of Poetry.’ Itis
a very pleasant volume to open, and does not send

1 ¥. T. Palgrave, Esq. }

1890 LETTER FROM MR. GLADSTONE 235

one away empty and cold; which means that it is
genuine poetry. We do not get on very fast; but
we are better here than in London, and the place is
pleasant.

Please remember us all to Mrs. Romanes. Mary
sends a very special remembrance.

Yours faithfully,
R. W. CHURCH.

From the Rt. Hon. W, #. Gideon
Hawarden.

Dear Mr. Romanes,—You have sent me an

acceptable gift, and a most considerate note; con-
siderate as regards me, but not, I fear, as respects
yourself; for you have made your appeal to an incom-
petent judge. I do not think I possess, though I
liave always coveted, the gift of song, and I am nota
qualified judge of those who have it.
_ But in your case there can surely be neither
difficulty nor doubt. I came home on Saturday
evening and found a book awaiting me with prior
personal claims, which has taken up most of the
short time since my arrival. It does not, however,
I think, require much time to learn from your book
whether you have or have not the poetic gift. Before
many minutes had passed the affirmation, I will not
say dawned, but glared, upon me.

I am very glad that you have proceeded to its
further exercise. I can see no good reason why a
man of science should not be a poet. Lord Bacon
surely shows in his Essays that he had the poet in
him. It all depends upon the way of going about it,

236 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881=

and on the man’s keeping himself, as man, above his
pursuit, as Emerson well said long ago.

I do not quite apprehend your estimate of Darwin,
nor of Darwin’s works, inp. 119. This is no doubt due
to my ignorance. I knew him little, but my slight
intercourse with him impressed me deeply as well as

pleasurably.
With sincere thanks, I remain, dear Mr. Romanes,
faithfully yours, W. E. GuapsTone.

Mr. Romanes was an omnivorous reader of poetry,
and this taste grew by what it fed on. On a holiday
he read poetry in preference to anything else, and he
was very fond of good anthologies, beginning first and
foremost with the ‘Golden Treasury.’ Shakespeare,
Milton, and, above all, Tennyson were the poets he
most loved. For Byron he had had an early boyish
enthusiasm, but this he seemed to outgrow; at least
Byron was not an author to whom in later years he
turned. He grew more and more addicted to versi-
fying in the later years of his life, and girl friends who
grew into intimate acquaintances were sure to have
sooner or later a sonnet sent to them on some special
occasion.

As the years went on he became more interested
in work amongst the poor, and longed to take up
some special line. For a while he set up a small
school in a slum near the Euston Road, in which he
tried to attract the very poorest boys who had
managed to elude the vigilance of the School Board.
His plan was to have only morning school, and to
ceive the children their dinner. The School Board
officer came to his aid, and the school was maintained
for one or two winters.

1890 PROFESSOR LE CONTE 237

He visited the school regularly, and on oneoccasion,
finding that a boy had been grossly rude to the mis-
tress, he gave the young scamp a sound whipping.

For other people’s interests in the way of work he
had much sympathy; he several times went down to
the Christ Church mission at Poplar when the Rev.
H. Li. Paget was in charge, and he lectured at Toynbee
Hall and at the Oxford House.

Of the work of the clergy as a whole Romanes
always spoke most warmly; of the peculiar dislike of
and suspicion of ‘ black coats,’ so often attributed to
laymen in general and to scientific men in particular,
he had no trace, and as years went on he used to be
gently chaffed for his clerical tendencies and the way
in which he was consulted as to the bearings of
Science on Religion.

Two new correspondents were now added to Mr.
Romanes’ list, Professor Joseph Le Conte, of the
University of California, and the Rev. J. Gulick, who
was, and is still, an American missionary in Japan.
Of Mr. Gulick’s scientific attainments, Mr. Romanes
entertained a very high opinion. Unfortunately, none
of the letters to Mr. Gulick have come to hand.

Of Mr. Le Conte’s book, ‘ Evolution and Religious
Thought,’ Mr. Romanes thought very highly, and
introduced it to the notice of various people, especially
to Mr. Aubrey Moore.

He writes to Mr. Le Conte:

To Professor Le Conte.
Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: October 11, 1887.
Dear Sir,—I am much obliged to you for sending

me a copy of your most interesting paper on Flora of
the Coast Islands, &e.

238° GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1881+

If you are acquainted with my new theory of
‘Physiological Selection’ (published in ‘Journ. Lin.
Soc.’ 1886) you will understand why I regard your
facts as furnishing first-rate material for testing
that theory. If you cannot get access to my paper, I
will send you a copy on my return to London in
December.

My object in now writing—over and above that of
thanking you for your paper—is to ask whether you
yourself, or any other American naturalist whom you
may know, would not feel it well worth while to try
some experiments on the hybridisation of the peculiar
species. Although I agree with you in thinking it
probable that many of these species may be ‘rem-
nants,’ I also think it abundantly possible that some
of them may be merely evolved forms. A botanist |
on the spot might be able to determine, by intelligent
comparison, which of the peculiar species are most
probably of the last-mentioned character. These he
might choose for his experiments on hybridisation.
And I should expect him to find marked evidence of
mutual sterility between closely allied unique species
growing on the same island, with possibly unimpaired
fertility between allied species growing on different
islands. If this anticipation should be realised by
experiment, the fact would go far to prove my
theory.

Even if you ap not happen to know ofany botanist
who would care to undertake this experimental re-
search, you might possibly know of some one who
would gather and transmit seeds for me to grow in
hothouses here.

190: LETTERS TO PROFESSOR LE CONTE 239

I shall be much interested to hear what you think
of these proposals, and meanwhile remain
Yours truly,

G. J. Romanes. ©

Geanies.

My dear Sir,—Your book I will look forward to
with much interest, and certainly not least so to
your treatment of that very comprehensive question
—‘ What then ?’

I will send you a copy of my paper on Physiological
Selection as soon as I return to Lendon, which will
be about Christmas.

With many thanks for your kindness, I remain,
yours truly, G. J. Romanes.

May 7, 1888.

My dear Sir,—Many thanks for sending me a copy
of your book,’ which seems to me everywhere admi-
rable. Of course, I am particularly glad that you
think with me so much on physiological selection, but
even apart from this, the work is, to my mind, one of
the most clearly thought out that I have met with in
Darwinian literature. I have sent it on to ‘Nature’
for review, understanding from the office that a copy
had not then been received. But for your kind
mention of myself, I should have reviewed it.

A most remarkable paper has been sent to the
Linnean Society by a Mr. Gulick on ‘ Divergent
Evolution, for the publication of which in the
‘Journal’ you might look out.

G. J. Romanes.

1 Evolution and Religious Thought.

240 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1886—

January 21, 1889.

My dear Sir,—I should like you to set your lucid
wits to work upon the following questions, and let me
know whether you can devise any answers.

On pp. 220-226 of your book, you state with ex-
treme felicity, and much better than he does, Weis-
mann’s theory of the causes of variation. But it does
not occur to him, and does not seem to have occurred
to you, that there is a curious and unaccountable
interruption in the ascending grades of sexual diffe-
rentiation, for in the vegetable kingdom these do not
follow the grades of taxonomic ascent; but, on the
contrary, and as a general rule, the lower the order of
evolution, the greater is the tendency to bi-sexualism.
Dicecious species (z.e. male and female organs on dif-
ferent plants) occur in largest proportion among the
lower Cryptogams, less frequently among the higher,
and more rarely still among Phanerogams. Mone-
cious species (z.e. male and female organs on the same
plant, but locally distinct) occur chiefly among the
higher Cryptogams and lower Phanerogams; Herma-
phrodite species (z.e. male and female organs in the
same flower) occur much more frequently among
higher Phanerogams.

There is, besides, another difficulty. According
to Weismann and yourself, it is natural selection that
has brought about sexuality ‘for the sake of better
results in the offspring,’ by making them more
variable or plastic. But how can natural selection
act prophetically? Unless the variability is of use to
the individuals at each stage of its advance, it cannot

1890 LETTERS TO PROFESSOR LE CONTE 241

come under the sway of natural selection, however
advantageous it may eventually prove to the type.
But, if one thinks about it, how can such variability
be of any use to the individual? Observe, beneficial
variability is quite different from beneficial variation.
It is the tendency to vary that is in question, not the
occurrence of this, that, and the other display of it.
Now, I do not see how sexuality can have been evolved
by natural selection for the purpose of securing their
tendency im the futwre, when it can never be of any
use to individuals of the present. Hach individual of
the present is an accomplished fact; the tendency to
produce variable offspring is, therefore, of no use to it
individually, and so natural selection would have no
reason to pick it out for living and propagating.
Such is my difficulty touching this point. Another
is, why do we meet with such great differences be-
tween (sometimes) allied natural genera, and even
whole natural orders, as to the facility with which
their constituent species hybridise? For example,
species of genus Geranium will hybridise almost better
than any other, those of the Pelargonium scarcely
at all.

I hope that at some time you will be able to get
sent to me seeds of species peculiar to oceanic islands,
should you hear of any botanists who are visiting

such islands.
G. J. Romanss.

I note that you have been good enough to pass
my questions on to Mr. Greene, whose great kindness
(already experienced by me) will, I trust, prevent

B

242 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1888—

him from thinking that the failure of the seeds to
flower here was due to any negligence on my part.

Yes, it is the same Rev. Mr. Gulick whom you
describe that wrote the paper on ‘ Divergent Evolution’
to which I alluded, and which is a most remarkable
paper in every way, though not at all easy to master.
Wallace completely misunderstood it in his letter to
‘Nature.’ It was his workin shells that first led Mr.
Gulick to study Isolation, and he has been at work
upon the subject ever since. To the best of my
judgment, he has demonstrated the necessity of what
he calls ‘segregate breeding’ for ‘polytypic evolu-
tion,’ and in this connection has worked out the idea
of physiological selection (which he calls segregate
fecundity) much more fully than I have.

It is most astonishing to me with what a storm
of opposition this idea has been met in England, and
how persistent is the misunderstanding. In Ger-
many and America it is being much more fairly
treated, but meanwhile I intend to keep it as quiet as
possible, till I shall be in a position to publish a large
body of experimental observations. As far as time
has hitherto allowed, the results are strongly corrobo-
rative of the theory.

I have now read your admirable book, and my
only objection to it is that it seems in such large
measure to anticipate the publication of my own
course of lectures on the theory of Evolution which
I am now giving at the Royal Institution. But, on
the other hand, this will relieve me of the necessity
of printing a good deal of my matter, as it will be
sufficient to refer to your book in mine when the two

1890 PROFESSOR WEISMANN’S THEORY 243

cover common ground. It is needless to add that I
am very glad to note you think so well of physiolo-
gical selection.
Yours very truly,
G. J. Romanzs.

The theory of the Non-Inheritance of Acquired
Characters, with which Professor Weismann’s name
is inseparably connected, was now coming to the front.

Mr. Romanes was, of course, intensely interested,
and set himself not to dispute somuch as to examine
and to test it.

He devoted a large part of his last year at the
Royal Institution to lecturing on Prof. Weismann’s
theory, which lectures he worked up into his book,
‘An Examination of Weismannism,’ published in
1892.

He devised many experiments to test that theory,
experiments which have a pathetic interest for those
who love him, for they occupied his mind up to the
very day of his death.

Of this theory it may safely be said that since the
promulgation of Mr. Darwin’s great doctrine, no pro-
blem has interested the world of science so profoundly.

For the most part the younger English naturalists
have accepted Professor Weismann’s theory, which,
by the way, had long ago been anticipated by Mr.
Francis Galton, and Mr. Romanes was not much
supported in his opposition, or, rather, his non-
adherence to Weismannism.

Linnean Society, Burlington House, London, W.: March 21, 1890.
My dear Dyer,—I have come to the conclusion

that anything published in ‘ Nature’ might as well
R2

944° GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 7 1888—

never have been published at all; and therefore have
come here to-day in order to look through the back
numbers of ‘ Nature,’ with a view to republishing as a
small book the various things that I have contributed
during the past twenty years. Thus it is I find that
the explanation which I gave to Herbert Spencer re
Panmixia and his articles on the ‘ Factors of Organic
Evolution,’ appeared in August 25, 1887, and showed
that his whole argument was in the air.

I have also read my own article on Panmixia,
written about two months ago, and published last
week. The result is to satisfy me that your ‘intelli-
gent’ friends must have had minds which do not
belong to the a priort order—+.e. are incapable of
perceiving other than the most familiar relations.
Such minds may do admirable work in other direc-
tions, but not in that of estimating the value of
Darwinian speculations. A few years ago they
would have thought the cessation of selection a very
unimportant principle, and one which could not
possibly sustain any such large question as that of
the transmissibility of acquired character. And a
few years hence they will wonder why they raised
such an ado over the no less obvious principle of
physiological selection.

| Yours very truly,
G. J. Romanes.
He writes to his brother :

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: Sunday.

My dearest James,—This theory, of the Non-
Inheritance of Acquired Characters, is that nothing

1890 PROFESSOR WEISMANN’S THEORY 245

that can happen in the lifetime of the individual
exercises any influence on its progeny; effects of use
or disuse, for example, cannot: be inherited, nor, there-
fore, can any adaptation to external conditions which
are brought about in individual organisms. Natural
selection thus can only operate in spontaneous varia-
tions of germ-plasm, choosing those variations which,
when ‘ writ large’ in the resulting organisms, are best
suited to survive and transmit.

This is the most important question that has
been raised in biology since I can remember, and one
proof of an inherited mutilation would settle the
matter against Weismann’s theory. I am_ therefore
also trying the mutilation of caterpillars at the Zoo,
in the hope that a mutilaticn during what is virtually
an embryonic period of life will be most likely to be
transmitted, seeing that congenital variations are so
readily transmissible, and that these are changes of
a pre-embryonic kind.

All well and with much love, yours ever,
GEORGE.

Have you got the ‘Contemporary Review’ for
June with my article on Darwinism? [If not, I will
send it.

In a letter of which only a part has been kept,
Mr. Waggett tried to show how mutual sterility (we.
the production of sterile offspring) might be produced
between two parts of a species (so as to constitute
them two species), ‘by way of natural selection,’
if only the small variations in every direction were
supposed which natural selection requires in respect

246 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1888—_

of any other specific peculiarity ; and also if ‘survival’
were recognised to be a matter of degree, consisting
in the greater or less representation of an individual
in following generations. This, of course, would
be a different explanation from that of physiological
selection, in which mutual sterility is regarded as the
original cause of the differentiation of parts of a
species, and also from sexual selection, in which
something different from automatic survival is indi-
cated by the word ‘ selection.’

From the Rev. P. N. Waggett.
The Charterhouse Mission, Tabard Street, S.E.

This is how I should put it systematically.

The number of ova produced in any female is
regulated by natural selection. It is no more than
the number which is required to obtain a sufficient
percentage of fertilised ova.

The number fertilised on the average is no more
than is necessary to provide (against death of off-
spring, failure of birth, &c.) for the representation
of the female in the species.

The average of meetings with the male is in the
same way not more than enough to provide (against
accidents, &c.) for the maternity of the female.

All this is pared down as close as it will go by
natural selection. ‘The enormous production of eggs
isnot one more than enough on average to provide
against all the eliminations.

) e 6 ® e ® ®

.1890 ON PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 24%

The force of the female and length of fertile
period, &c., is enough and no more to bear enough
offspring under all these conditions to maintain her
representation in the species. (We use ‘provide,’
‘maintain’ poetically.)

She has no time to spare. She lives long enough
to replace herself in species and no longer.

[In what follows] I say ‘mare’ for short. At
present mares are not under natural conditions. And
no doubt in high feeding, &c., and protection pro-
duce many more ova than enough, and so on through
the series. In nature the ground is full stocked.
‘Enough and no more’ is the badge of all our
tribe.

Take then a species of animals, a number of indi-
viduals, closely related, all alike, and freely interbreed-
ing and producing fertile and nearly similar offspring.

Now suppose two varieties to arise by any means
known. Is there any things which will produce in-
sterility between these varieties without a new addt-
tional factor of segregation ?

A mare of variety A might bear say twenty off-
spring of variety A. If she spends force in bearing
ten of variety A B, on average she will bear ten only

of A.

The intermediate form is at a disadvantage : see
Wallace.

The mare then has only half her representation
in the extreme variety A. (And the others are no
good to her for prolonging her seed, in the long run).

248 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1888—_

Now if one mare among many has the slightest
degree of insterility with the second variety, she will
have a larger representation in A, and a less represen-
tation in that intermediate portion of species which
is ready to vanish away.

Her unsuccessful attempts with B come into the
ordinary number of failures to fertilise which the
supply of ova provides for. Her nourishing and
bearing powers are spent on producing A.

And this is so in whatever smallest degree she is
infertile with B, that is in whatever smallest degree
she tends not to bear intermediates. We want no
special segregating variation, only all possible varia-
tion in this respect as im others—and the smallest
will be accumulated by ‘new natural selection ’ pre-
cisely as the smallest variations in hoof or hair are,
a.e. by less or more representation within the group.

The mares who bear no intermediate or centrally
typed forms will be in each generation more and
more preponderatingly represented. Those which
are equally fertile in all directions will become rarer
and rarer till at last they are counted abnormal.

That explains sterility of two adjacent species
inter se.

But not the infertility of hybrids.
Ithink that actsin a similar way. Two mares
bear jirst crosses, which are fertile either with original
species on either side or with other first crosses.

If one of these mares bears ‘first crosses which
are less fertile, she is less represented, 7.e. succeeded
‘in the central portion of the stock, and more in her
own part of it, by her other children, and so in the

1890 ON PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 249

next generation. And since the ova are among the
earliest formed tissues, the first-cross creature is
born more or less infertile—its sexual condition comes
straight from its mother—and acts back on its mother
by natural selection, as a man’s books act back on
him when he is considered as a factor in the making
of English style.

It is an advantage then (from the point of view
of life and death in the long run) for a mother to bear
fertile extreme forms, and infertile central forms—and
this in any degree.

There might be five mares. The first wndifferently
bearing to all alike, and so on an average bearing
equal numbers [the rest bearing increasingly less
freely with B], ten A and ten AB, eleven A and nine
AB, twelve A and eight AB [and so on]... nine-
teen A and one AB, twenty A and no AB.

All the AB’s are at a disadvantage, and must in
long run be unrepresented in the final balance of
species.

And if there are two which bear equally AB’s,
the one which bears them most infertile will in the
long run be best represented in the aggregate of
descendants from herself and her relations.

Geanies, Rosshire, N.B.: July 28, 1890.

My dear Waggett,—It seems to me most desirable
to retain the term ‘natural selection’ as defined and
everywhere used by Darwin. I know that it is
often (and not rarely, unconsciously as by Wallace)

250 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1888—

extended so as to include failure to propagate from
any cause, besides that of death, through comparative
mal-adaptation in the struggle for existence. In this
extended sense, of course, it includes, as you say,
sexual selection, and also a variety of other prin-
ciples, which would thus fail to be distinguished
as distinct principles. Moreover, by thus identifying
them, the most distinguishing feature of natural
selection becomes obscured ; for, I take it, this most
distinguishing feature is not that of homogamy (or
breeding of like with like to the exclusion of breeding
with unlike), but homogamy where likeness is deter-
mined by adaptation. All the other forms of dis-
criminate breeding (such as sexual selection) agree
among themselves and with natural selection in
being exclusive, or in allowing propagation only
to some individuals of the species (7.e. those which
resemble one another in respect to the characters
which determine permission to propagate). But the
enormous difference between them all and natural
selection consists in the latter alone making for
envprovement of type in respect of adaptation. Here
alone homogamy is due to a struggle for existence, is
brought about by death of the non-propagating, and
has reference to fitness in a life-preserving sense.
Surely this is the great distinguishing mark of
natural selection, considered as a principle in organic
evolution: not the merely exclusive breeding, which
is presented also by all the other principles which
your extension of the term would embrace, but which
in their case can have no effect in the way of

1890 ON PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 251

evolving any of the adaptive mechanisms in organic
nature.

It is for these reasons that in my forthcoming
lectures I carefully and expressly follow Darwin in
holding ‘that there must be a life and death
question to make natural selection.’ No doubt your
principle, if it works, ‘accumulates variation by
mere elimination of competitors’; but in so doing
it does not ‘make for righteousness’ in the sense
of emprovement.

Therefore I say, it is not, properly speaking, ‘a
form of natural selection.’ On the other hand, I
think it 7s a form of physiological selection. For,
as you observe, physiological selection depends for its
action on ‘some change in the organs concerned.’
But is it not precisely to explain such a change that
your principle is suggested? As I understand it,
your principle is put forward as one possible (or more
or less probable) cause of increasing sterility of first
crosses between two sexually segregating sections of
a hitherto (or previously) uniform species. Now, if
this be so, is not your suggestion a suggestion to
explain the causation of the particular physiological
variation on the occurrence of which my theory
depends? Unless you can show any reason for
answering this question in the negative, I can only
continue to regard your principle (which I think a
most interesting one) as belonging to the category of
physiological selection. For, if you turn to p. 354 of
my paper, you will see that wmediately after stating
the theory, I say :—

‘First, let it be observed that if this particular

252 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 18S8—

kind of variation ever takes place at all, we are not
concerned either with its causes or with its degrees.
Not with its causes, because in this respect the
theory of physiological selection is in just the same
position as that of natural selection ; it is enough for
both that the needful variations are provided, without
its being incumbent on either to explain the causes
which underlie the variations.’

Nevertheless, just as it is of importance to any
one believing in natural selection to ascertain these
underlying causes of the variations on which 7
depends, so &c. &c. Therefore I suggested some as
more or less probable—e.g. in plants slight differences
in the season of flowering. Now, your principle
seems to me a further suggestion on the same lines:
it seeks to explain the raison d’étre of cumulative
inter-sterility between two sections of a species.

Lastly, I do not follow what you say about your
not requiring a ‘ segregation,’ but only ‘ variations in
every possible direction, with no special factor brought
in besides to effect the beginning and progress of
separation.’ It seems to me, on the contrary, Ist,
that you must assume the sexual variation to have
already been begun by some other cause, or causes
(else there could be no hybrids in the question) ; and
Qnd, that when infertility—or other inferiority—of
the hybrids begins to tell on the parent forms in
the way supposed, that the only varirtion which
it is concerned in continuing and intensifying is
the variation on which physiological selection de-
pends—viz. infertility between A and B, with unim-
paired fertility between both Ax A and B x B—where

1890 SALLY 953

A and B are two sections of a sexually segregating
species. 3
I have written thus at length, because I am
anxious to prevent loggerheads in print from absence
of clear understanding of each other’s views. I,
after considering the matter in the light I have
endeavoured to present, you still fail to agree, please
say why ; and in any case believe me to remain,
Always your
PHILOSOPHER.

Please return this letter, as it may be of use
in answering your next—you marking it to avoid
quoting.

Another bit of work was an investigation into
the intelligence of the chimpanzee ‘Sally’ at the
Zoological Gardens, which the following letter de-
scribes :

SAVAGE versus BRUTE.
To the Editor of the ‘ Times’ (Sept. 19, 1888)

Sir,—In connection with the correspondence on
the powers of counting displayed by savages, it
may be of interest to narrate the following facts
with regard to similar powers as displayed by
brutes.

One often hears a story told which seems to show
that rooks are able to count as far as five. The
source of this story, however, is generally found to
have been forgotten, and therefore the story itself is
discredited. Now, the facts stand on the authority

254 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1888—

of a very accurate observer, and as he adds that they
are ‘always to be repeated when the attempt is
made,’ so that they are regarded by him as ‘among
the very commonest instances of animal sagacity,’
we cannot lightly set them aside. The observer in
question is Leroy, and the facts for which he
personally vouches in his work on animal intelligence
are briefly as follows:

‘The rooks will not return to their nests during
daylight should they see that anyone is waiting to
shoot them. If to lull suspicion a hut is made below
the rookery and a man conceal himself therein, he
will have to wait in vain, should the birds have ever
been shot at from the hut on a previous occasion.
Leroy then goes on to say: ‘To deceive this suspicious
bird, the plan was hit upon of sending two men into
the watch-house, one of whom passed out while the
other remained; but the rook counted and kept her
distance. The next day three went, and again she
perceived that only two returned. In fine, it was
found necessary to send five or six men to the watch-
house in order to throw out her calculation.’

Finding it on this testimony not incredible that a
bird could count as far as five, I thought it worth
while to try what might be done with a more
intelligent animal in this connection. Accordingly,
about a year ago, I began, with the assistance of the
keeper, to instruct the chimpanzee at the Zoological
Gardens in the art of computation. The method
adopted was to ask her for one, two, three, four, or
five straws, which she was to pick up and hand out
from among the litter in her cage. Of course, no

1890 SALLY 955

constant order was observed in making these requests,
but whenever she handed a number not asked for her
offer was refused. In this way the animal learnt to
associate the numbers with their names. Lastly, if
more than one straw were asked for she was taught
to hold the others in her mouth until the required
number was complete, and then to deliver the whole
at once. This method prevented any possible error
arising from her interpretation of vocal tones, an
error which might well have arisen if each straw had
been asked for separately.

After a few weeks’ continuous instruction the ape
perfectly well understood what was required of her,
and up to the time when I left town, several months
ago, she rarely made a mistake in handing me the
exact number of straws that I named. Doubtless
she still continues to do so for her keeper. For
instance, if she is asked for four straws she succes-
sively picks up three and puts them in her mouth,
then she picks up a fourth and hands over all the
four together. Thus, there can be no doubt that the
animal is clearly able to distinguish between the
numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and that she understands
the name for each. But as this chimpanzee is some-
what capricious in her moods, even private visitors
must not be disappointed if they fail to be entertained
by an exhibition of her learning, a caution which it
seems desirable to add, as this is the first time that
the attainments of my pupil have been made known
to the public, although they have been witnessed
by officers of the Society and other biological
friends.

256 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1888—_

I have sent these facts to you, Sir, because I think
that they bear out the psychological distinction which
is drawn in your leading article of the 17th inst,
Briefly put, this distinction amounts to that between
sensuous estimation and intellectual notation. Any
child, a year after emerging from infancy, and not yet
knowing its numerals, could immediately see the
difference between five pigs and six pigs, and there-
fore, as your writer indicates, it would be an extra-
ordinary fact if a savage were unable to do so. The
case, of course, is different where any process of
calculation is concerned: e.g. ‘each sheep must be
paid for separately; thus, suppose two sticks of
tobacco to be the rate of exchange for one sheep, it
would sorely puzzle a Damara to take two sheep and
give him four sticks.’ (F. Galton, ‘Tropical South
Africa,’ p. 213.) Butif the savage had to deal with
a larger number of pigs the insufficiency of his sensu-
ous estimation would increase with the increase of
numbers, until a point would be reached at which, if
he were to keep count at all, he would be obliged to
resort to some system of notation, z.e. to mark off
each separate unit with a separate nota, whether by
fingers, notches, or words. Similarly with the sense
of hearing and the so-called muscular sense. We
can tell whether a clock strikes 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 without
naming each stroke, and whether we have walked 1,
9, 3, 4, or 5 paces without naming each pace, but we
cannot in this way be sure whether a clock has struck
11 or 12, or we ourselves have walked as many yards.

Thus there is counting and counting, distinguish-
ing between low numbers by directly appreciating

1890 SALLY Oi

the difference between two quantities of sensuous
perceptions, and distinguishing between numbers of
any amount by marking each sensuous perception
with a separate sign. Of course, in the above in-
stance of animals counting it must be the former
method alone that is employed, and, therefore, I have
not sought to carry the ape beyond the number 5
lest I should spoil the results already gained. Buta
careful research has been made to find how far this
method can be carried in the case of man. ‘The
experimerts consisted in ascertaining the number of
objects (such as dots on a piece of paper) which admit
of being simultaneously estimated with accuracy. It
was found that the number admits of being largely
increased by practice, until, with an exposure to view
of one second’s duration, the estimate admits of
being correctly made up to between 20 and 30 objects.
(Preyer, ‘ Sitzungsber. d. Gesell. f. Med. u. Naturwiss.,’
1881.) Inthe case of the ape it is astonishing over
how long a time the estimate endures. Supposing,
for instance, that she is requested to find five coloured
straws. She perfectly well understands what is
wanted, but as coloured straws are rare in the litter,
she has to seek about for them, and thus it takes her
a long time to complete the number; yet she remem-
bers how many she has successively found and put
into her mouth, so that when the number is com-
pleted shedeliversit at once. After having consigned
them to her mouth she never looks at the straws, and
therefore her estimate of their number must be formed
either by the feeling of her mouth, or by retaining a
mental impression of the successive movements of her
S

958 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 18s8—

arm in picking up the straws and placing them in her
mouth. Without being able to decide positively in
which of these ways she estimates the number, I am
inclined to think it is in the latter. But, if so, it is
surprising, as already remarked, over how long a time
this estimate by muscular sense endures. Should
we trust Houzeau’s statement, however (and he is
generally trustworthy), it appears that computation
by muscular sense may extend in some animals over
a very long period. For he says that mules used in
the tramways at New Orleans have to make five
journeys from one end of the route to the other before
they are released, and that they make four of these
journeys without showing any expectation of being
released, but begin to bray towards the end of the
fifth.’

From this letter it will, I hope, be apparent that
so far as ‘counting’ by merely sensuous computation
is concerned, the savage cannot be said to show much
advance upon the brute. ‘Once, while I watched a
Damara floundering hopelessly in a calculation on one
side of me, I observed Dinah, my spaniel, equally em-
barrassed on the other. She was overlooking half a
dozen of her new-born puppies, which had been re-
moved two or three times from her, and her anxiety
was expressive as she tried to find out if they were
all present, or if any were still missing. She kept
puzzling and running her eyes over them, backwards
and forwards, but could not satisfy herself. She evi-
dently had a vague notion of counting, but the figure
was too large for her brain. Taking the two as they

1 Fac. Ment. des Aninv. tom. il. p. 207.

1890 SALLY ~ 259

stood, dog and Damara, the comparison reflected no
great honour on the man.’ (Galton, loc. cit.) But
the case, of course, is quite otherwise when, in virtue
of the greatly superior development of the sign-mak-
ing faculty in man, the savage is enabled to employ
the intellectual artifice of separate notation, whereby
he attains the conception of number in the abstract, .
and so lays the foundation of mathematical science.
Now, so far as I am aware, there is no trustworthy
evidence of any race of savages who are without any
idea of separate notation. Whether the system of
notation be digital only, or likewise verbal, is, psycho-
logically speaking, of comparatively little moment.
For it is historically certain that notation begins by
using the fingers, and how far any particular tribe
may have advanced in the direction of naming their
numbers is a question which ought never to be con-
fused with that as to whether the tribe can ‘count,’
2.€. notate.

Grorce J. RoMANgzs.
Geanies, Ross-shire.

s 2

260 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1889-

CHAPTER IV
OXFORD

Lirz had run very smoothly during these years from
1879 to 1890, only now and then fits of gout had
shaken the belief Mr. Romanes had hitherto felt in
his own strength, in his possession of perfect health.

But about the end of 1889 other signs of ill-health
appeared in the shape of severe headaches; he began
to weary of London and the distractions of London life.

By degrees his thoughts and inclinations turned
strongly in the direction of Oxford. Oxford seemed
to satisfy every wish. 'The beautiful city gratified his
poetic sense; there were old friends already there to
welcome him, and there seemed abundance of appli-
ances and of facilities for scientific work.

Also the ease with which he could get into the
country, the opportunities for constant exercise, the
freedom he would obtain from councils and com-
mittees, were tempting. A beautiful old house oppo-
site Christ Church was to be had, and this finally deter-
mined him. He fell absolutely in love with Oxford,
and brief as his connection with her was to be, the
University has had few more loyal sons, nor has she
ever exercised more complete influence over any who
have fallen under her sway.

It is surprising, as one looks back on the Oxford
years, to realise how short a time Mr. Romanes spent

1890 MR. AUBREY MOORE—‘LUX MUNDI’ 261

there, and yet it is impossible not to realise also for
how much that time counted in his life.

Many influences were working in him: a ripening
judgment, a growth of character, a deepening sensé
of the inadequacy of scientific research, philosophical
speculation, and artistic pleasures to fill ‘the vacuum
in the soul of man which nothing can fill save faith in
God.’* And now Oxford, with all the beauty still left
to her, with all the associations which haunt her, with
all the extraordinary witching spell which she knows
so well how to exercise—Oxford, the home of ‘lost
causes’ and also of forward movements, Oxford came
to be for four brief years his home.

1890 opened with the death of Mr. Aubrey Moore.
Only a very few weeks before his too early death, Mr.
Moore had been present at the Aristotelian Society,’
and had heard the joint papers contributed by Pyro-
fessor Alexander, the Rev. 8. Gildea, and Mr. Romanes
on the ‘ Evidences of Design in Nature.’

Here, again, Mr. Romanes showed how far he had
receded from the materialistic point of view. In his
paper he quoted passages from Aubrey Moore’s essay
in ‘ Lux Mundi’ (just published), and says:

Yet once more, it may be argued, as it has been
argued by a member of this Society in a recently pub-
lished essay—and this an essay of such high ability
that in my opinion it must be ranked among the very

1 See Thoughts on Religion, p. 92.

* Mr. Romanes had belonged for many years to the Aristotelian
Society, and had contributed papers to the Journal of the Society. He
also once belonged to the Psychological Club, which used to meet at Pro-
fessor Croom Robertson’s house. The other members of the club were Mr.
Francis Galton, Mr. Sully, Mr. Shadworth Hodgson, Professor Edgeworth,
Professor Dunstan, Mr. Edmund Gurney, Mrs. Bryant, and one or two others.

262 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1889

few of the very greatest achievements in the depart-
ment of literature to which it belongs—it may, I say,
be argued, as it recently has been argued by the Rev.
Aubrey Moore, that ‘the counterpart of the theological
belief in the unity and omnipresence of God is the
scientific beliefin the unity of nature and the reign of
law’; that ‘the evolution which wasat first supposed to
have destroyed teleology is found to be more saturated
with teleology than the view which it superseded’ ;
that ‘it is a great gain to have eliminated chance, to
find science declaring that there must be a reason for
everything, even when we cannot hazard a conjecture
as to what the reason is’; that ‘it seems as if in the
providence of God the mission of modern science was
to bring home to our unmetaphysical ways of thinking
the great truth of the Divine immanence in creation,
which is not less essential to the Christian idea of
God than to the philosophical view of Nature.’ But
on the opposite side it may be represented—as,
indeed, Mr. Aubrey Moore himself expressly allows—
that all these deductions are valid only on the pre-
formed supposition, or belief, ‘that God is, and that
He is the rewarder of such as diligently seek Him.’
Granting, as Mr. Aubrey Moore insists, that a pre-
cisely analogous supposition, or belief, is required for
the successful study of Nature—viz. ‘that it is, and
that it is a rational (? orderly) whole which reason
can interpret,’ still, where the question is as to
the existence of God, or the fact of design, it
constitutes no final answer to show that all these
deductions would logically follow if such an answer
were yielded in the affirmative. All that these

is90:~=X08S YMPOSIUM ON ‘DESIGN IN NATURE’ 963

deductions amount to is an argument that there is
nothing in the constitution of nature inimical to the
hypothesis of design: beyond this they do not yield
any independent verification of that hypothesis. In-
numerable, indeed, are the evidences of design in
nature if once a designer be supposed; but, apart
from any such antecedent supposition, we are without
any means of gauging the validity of such evidence
as is presented. And the reason of this is, that we
are without any means of ascertaining what it is that
hes behind, and is itself the cause of, the uniformity
of nature. In other words, we do not know, and can-
not discover, what is the nature of natural causation.

Nevertheless, I think it is a distinct gain, both to
the philosophy and the theology of our age, that
science has reduced the great and old-standing
question of Design in Nature to this comparatively
narrow issue. Therefore, I have directed the purpose
of this paper to showing that, in view of the issue to
which science has reduced this question, it cannot be
answered on the lower plane of argument which Mr.
Alexander has chosen. All that has been effected
by our recent discovery of a particular case of caus-
ality in the selection principle is to throw back the
question of design, in all the still outstanding pyro-
vinces of Nature, to the question—What is the
nature of natural causation? Or, again, to quote
Mr. Aubrey Moore, ‘ Darwinism has conferred upon
philosophy and religion an inestimable benefit by
showing us that we must choose between two alter-
natives: either God is everywhere present in Nature,
or He is nowhere.’ This, I apprehend, puts the issue

264 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1889=

into as small a number of words as it well can be put.
And whether God is everywhere or nowhere depends
on what is the nature of natural causation. Is this
intelligent or unintelligent? Is it the mode in which
a Divine Being is everywhere simultaneously and
eternally operating; or is it but the practical expres-
sion of what we understand by a mechanical necessity ?
In short, is it original or derrved—final, and therefore
inexplicable, because self-existing ; or is it the effect
of a higher cause in the existence of a disposing
Mind ?

Although I cannot wait to argue this, the ulti-
mate question which we have met to consider, I may
briefly state my own view with regard to it. This is
the same view that the originator of the doctrine of
natural selection himself used habitually to express
to me in conversation—viz., to use his own words, ‘ I
have long ago come to the conclusion that it is a
question far beyond the reach of the human mind.’
Such, of course, is the position of pure agnosticism.

At the end of this paper, Mr. Aubrey Moore re-
marked that he agreed with all Mr. Alexander’s argu-
ments, but disagreed with all his conclusions, and
that he disagreed with all Mr. Gildea’s arguments,
but agreed with his conclusions; and as for Mr.
Romanes, he could only leave him out, after the kind
and flattering terms in which he had spoken of the
essay in ‘Lux Mundi.’ At the end of his little
speech he said aside to a friend, ‘What a fellow
Romanes is! “ Lux Mundi”’ has been out about three
weeks, and he knows all about it.’

The friends are lying almost side by side in Holy-

1899 DEATH OF AUBREY MOORE 265

well,! and it is impossible not to feel that their deaths
have left places hard to fill. About Aubrey Moore, Mr.
Romanes wrote some touching words in the ‘ Guar-
dian ’ (he was never afraid to express his admiration, to
wear his heart upon his sleeve). The little notice has
now been reprinted with two others as a Preface to
the volume of Mr. Moore’s Essays ‘Scientific and
Philosophical.’
To Mr. Romanes.
Ch. Ch., January 17, 1890.

My dear Romanes,—You will have heard, I think,
the great sorrow and loss which to-day has brought,
in that dear Aubrey Moore was taken away from us
this morning. He had been very ill since Monday
with congestion of the lungs following influenza.

Dear friend, I know how you and Mrs. Romanes
will miss him; it is a loss we can very slowly realise
and fathom.

I have never known anyone who combined such
sifts for the help of others; such strength and brilli-
ancy and loveableness and generosity. May God
help us to learn the lesson of such lives, and to grow
in love, and to know and do His will.

I am, affectionately yours,
Francis Pacer.
To Mr. Paget.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: January 18, 1890.

My dear Paget,—Like most men of my age, I
have had many sudden shocks of this kind, but never
one in a more terrible degree than is delivered by

_ ? The beautiful cemetery adjoining Holywell Church, Oxford.

266 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1889

your letter this morning. It is so very short a time
since he was our guest, and my wife has a letter
from him dated only a few days ago. Yet this is
not the reason why your intelligence is so over-
whelming—excepting in so far as his visit enabled
me more than ever to appreciate the extraordinary
combination of learning, intellect, kindness, and
religion, where each was present in the highest
degree. For who was more learned? Who more
intellectual ? more full of heart, or more charged
with the power of Christianity? It appeared to me
that a nature thus endowed in greatest measure with
all the greatest attributes of humanity was really, in
respect of their combination, the most remarkable
man I ever met. And I am perfectly persuaded
that, had he lived for another twenty years, his
would have become the strongest voice in England
against the infidelity of our generation.

Personally the loss is to me more than I can
compute. For not only have I lost a newly gained
friend, but one whose rich stores of knowledge and
of thought had just begun to open such large possi-
bilities in the way of adding to my own. But well
I know that this loss must be but small compared
with yours, whose longer and deeper friendship must
have brought into so much greater prominence the
void that has been left by a ‘loveliness and gene-
rosity’ which are now no more. Therefore, I not
only grieve with you, but for you—and this with all
the sincerity of

Your sincerely affectionate friend,
Gro. J. Romanzs.

1890 LETTER ON WEISMANN’S THEORY 267

P.S.—If possible, I should much like to attend
the funeral. Can you let me hear as to this ?

To Professor Poulton.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: January 27, 1890.

My dear Poulton,—Many thanks for your letter,
with its very clear and cogentreasoning. But Iam
not sure that the latter does not hit Weismann
harder than it hits me. For the cases you have in
view are those where very recently acquired charac-
ters are concerned; and where, therefore, according
to my views, ‘the force of heredity’ is weak and thus
quickly ‘worn out.’ In such cases (as I say in the
last passages of enclosed, which I return for you to
hand me on Friday) ‘ cessation will (quzckly) ensure
the reduction of an unused organ below fifty per cent.
of its original size, and so on down to zero; but this
it does because it is now assisted by another and
co-operating principle—viz. the eventual failure of
heredity.’

Now, it is just this co-operating principle that
Weismann is debarred from recognising by his dogma
about ‘stability of germ-plasm.’ And it is a principle
that must act the more energetically (¢.e. ‘ quickly ’)
the shorter the time since the now degenerating organ
was originally acquired. In the ‘Nature’ articles I
was speaking of ‘rudimentary organs’ which in
Darwin’s sense are very old heirlooms. All this to
make you reconsider whether there is any disagree-
ment between us upon this point.

268 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1890

It is, indeed, a terrible thing about Aubrey Moore,
and also a loss to Darwinism on its popular side.
G. J. RB.

February 16, 1890.

After receiving your letter this day a month ago,
it occurred to me that I had better write an article in
‘Nature’ on Panmixia, pointing out the resemblances
and the differences between Weismann’s statement
of the principle and mine. Shortly after sending it
in, Weismann’s answer to Vines appeared, and from
this it seems that he has modified his views upon the
subject. For while in his essays he says that ‘the
complete disappearance of a rudimentary organ can
only take place by the operation of natural selection ’
(i.e. reversal of selection through economy, &c.), in
‘Nature’ he says, ‘Organs no longer in use become
rudimentary, and must finally disappear, solely by
Panmixia.’ Thus, the same facts are attributed at
one time ‘only’ to the presence of selection, and at
another time ‘solely’ to its absence.

Now, the latter view seems exactly the same as
mine, if it means (as I suppose it must) that the
cessation of selection ultimately leads to a failure of
heredity. (How about stability of germ-plasm here ?)
The time during which the force of heredity will per-
sist, when thus merely left to itself, will vary with the
original strength of this force, which, in turn, will
presumably vary with the length of time that the
organ has previously been inherited. Thus, differences
of merely specific value (to which you allude in your
letter) will quickly disappear under cessation of

1890 ON WEISMANNISM 2969

selection, while ‘ vestiges’ of class value are long-
enduring. The point to be clear about is that the
cessation of selection (in my view) entails two conse-
quences, which are quite distinct. First, a compara-
tively small amount of reduction due to promiscuous
variability round an average which, however, will be
a continuously sinking average if the cessation is
assisted by a reversal of selection; and second, later
on, a failure of the form of heredity itself.

Touching the first of the two consequences, you
say that ‘variations below or away from the standard
would not be balanced by those above, because the
standard was reached by the selection of such an
extremely minute fraction of all variations which
occurred.’ But can variations in the matter of
increase or decrease take place in more than two
directions, up or down, smaller or larger, better or
worse ? (Read Wallace, ‘ Darwinism,’ pp. 143-4.)

I write this in view of the lecture you say you are
going to give, because I do not know when ‘ Nature’
will bring out my article.

March 20, 1890.

It might perhaps be well for you to read the type-
written reply which I have prepared to Wallace’s
criticism on ‘physiological selection.’ But this is
for you to consider. He has fallen into some errors
of great carelessness, not only with regard to my
paper, but also to that of Mr. Gulick, whose theory of
‘segregate fecundity ’ is the same as mine. On this
account I am able to upset the whole criticism, and,
bottom upwards, to show that it really supports the
theory.

270 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1890

I see ‘ Nature’ of this week contains my letter on
Panmixia, and hope it will define in your and other
minds the outs and ins of the matter.

Please return the enclosed, which I send as a fact
that may interest you.

To Professor J. C. Ewart.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: April 27, 1890.

As Ethel has already told you, I believe, we have
taken a three years’ lease of a charming old house,
and let this one for a corresponding period. Itisa
very old house in Oxford, having been built by
Cardinal Wolsey. It is immediately opposite Tom
Tower of Christ Church, and full of old oak—walls,
floors, and ceilings of the principal rooms being
nothing else.

I do wish you could come up before we begin
operations, to give us the benefit of your advice how
so splendid an opportunity in the way of decoration
should be utilised. Wehave to get out of this house,
with all our furniture, on or before May 20. The
children and servants will then go to Geanies, while my
wife and I will go to Oxford to begin the decorations.

I am preparing my lectures on Darwinism for the
press, so that they may be ready for publication on
the last day of my course at Edinburgh in November.
I suppose I have your permission to reproduce your
R.S. pictures of electric organs? Also, could you
send me for a day or two Haddon’s book on Em-
bryology ?

I have just heard that Charles Lister (whom I

94 ST, ALDATE’S

1890 OXFORD 271

think you met at Geanies) has died of fever in
Brazil, where he was zoologising.
Yours ever sincerely,
Gro. J. Romanss.

To Mrs. Romanes.

April 1889.
Marian Pollock wants to make me dance at a
ball, but I say it is a case of bringing a horse to the
water (or an ass if you like). A philosopher cannot
expect to be pushed through his paces by the kind-
ness of strangers as he has been by that of his guests.

Give my love to my other sister’ and my only wife.

April 12, 1889.

Another letter from some one named Rose who
‘as’ been made ‘appy’ by you, ‘hand’ would have
been to church but for her mistress, ‘hand’ so would
you please write, and then Rose might meet you and
pour out her sorrows.

A Hungarian youth called to-day wanting me to
tell him which bankers would allow him to inspect
their bank books in order that he might study their
methods for his political economy! I told him he
had better go and try.

Yesterday I took Mytsie’ to the theatre, and to-
day have been to the Pollocks and the Gosses.

The move was made from London to Oxford in
May 1890. Mr. Romanes incorporated with the Uni-
versity and became a member of Christ Church. This

1 Mrs. Ingham, a very dear and intimate friend.
2 A favourite cousin who died a few months after Mr. Romanes,

272 GEORGEH JOHN ROMANES 1890

connection with ‘the House’ was a great pleasure to

m.
For a little while during the early summer of 1890
Mr. Romanes was alone in Oxford, and he writes :

To Mrs. Romanes.

I called to-day on Mr. Dodgson, to sign my name
in the Common Room, and signed my name in the
book where the signatures go back to the foundation
of the House. It is certainly the best thing I could
have done to join Christ Church, and I am enjoying
this return to my undergraduate days as something
quite novel. Yesterday Liddon* graced the high table
with his company. He was particularly gracious to
me, remembering all about our meeting years ago,
and hoping to be allowed to have the pleasure of call-
ing upon us when we were settled in the ‘ almshouse.’?
After dinner in the Common Room, seeing that the
party was both elderly and reverend, all the other six
being parsons, I started what seemed to me a suit-
able game, viz. who could best ‘card wool’ in oppo-
site directions, or turn the right hand round and
round one way, while at the same time turning the
left hand round and round the other way. This inno-
cent occupation at once became very popular-—the
Canon in particular being greatly interested in the
peculiar difficulty which it presents. For my own
part, I much enjoyed the spectacle of all these dons
winding their hands about, and this enjoyment

1 Dr. Liddon died in September 1890.
* The house which Mr. Romanes had taken was originally an alms-
house.

1890 OXFORD 273

reached its climax when Dr. Liddon ended by tilting
his glass of claret off the table into his lap.

But there is a good deal of fun behind his serious
exterior, and he enjoyed this little catastrophe as
much as the rest of us. So you see that the snares
and temptations of University hfe do not dangerously
assail your husband at the high table of Christ Church.

Yesterday we had our physiological picnic, start-
ing in five boats, and taking tea on the river-bank
near the old farmhouse. I took supper with the
Sandersons, who had a party. ‘The Victor Horsleys
were at the picnic, and I have arranged that they
will pay us a visit in October.

It is very jolly living in this house, but it is well
we are both good sleepers, the noise of traffic is so
great; even the foot-passengers sound like burglars.

But this will not affect the children in the other
wing, and as for me, I could sleep if the carriages were
driving through the rooms, with the burglars to boot.

I have only time to write a very few lines, as I
am now momentarily expecting to be called to give
my exposition before the Physiological Society,’
which has mustered in considerable force, and is now
being regaled by Horsley”? and Gotch* while I am
watching my plants, which are coming on next.

The dinner at Ch. Ch. yesterday was most enjoy-
able, though there were only four others besides
myself at the high table. We had turtle soup and
very good wine; is that good for gout ?

1 The Physiological Society has a yearly meeting at Oxford.

? Professor Victor Horsley, F.R.S., Univ. Coll., London.
° Professor of Physiology at Oxford.

274 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1ge0te

John has gone and I am well. The connection
sounds like one of Gerald’s letters.
Yours ever the same.

I have been signing my name in Latin so much
of late that I stumble over it. Besides, I am not
really the same, being a M.A. M. A.

St. Aldate’s: July 1, 1890.

I have just come back from dinner. My next
neighbour to-night was Liddon, and we had a long
talk on the ethics of suicide regarded from the pre-
Christian or purely ‘secular’ point of view.

I also improved the occasion in the interests of
P.N. W. It was clearly a new light to Liddon that
Philip should be so highly thought of by a man of
science, and he appesred to have determined there
and then to exert himself in getting a more suitable
berth for ‘a man now so greatly needed in the Church.’

Oxford.

Two bits of news. Dunstan! has a son and
Liddon is seriously ill. Dr. John Ogle came yester-
day afternoon from town to see him, and dined with
us. There is great pain in the neck.

I lunched with the Sandersons, or rather with Mrs.
Sanderson, as the Professor did not leave his room,
but he is getting on very well.

Last night after dinner I looked in at the Poul-
tons, and found them entertaining two Natural
Science young ladies from Somerville Hall. A very

1 Professor W. Dunstan, F.R.S,

1890 OXFORD 275

agreeable party. Huxley is expected here this
week. His article on ‘Lux Mundi’ is very charac-
teristic.

It would be very enjoyable to go with you to Ober
Ammergau, butlamsureI ought not. First, I should
not enjoy it half so much as you; second, it
would double the expense; third, it would run away
with all the time I want to give to the book. Soin
this case what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for
the gander.

I wish I had some jokes to treasure up, but
Oxford is not a joke-yielding place at present;
Geanies must be jubilation itself compared with
Oxford now.

I am the sole occupant of the laboratory as of the
house. But I rather enjoy the exclusive privilege of
my own company, save so far as it is relieved by
guinea-pigs. I have written a letter to ‘ Nature’
which will furnish a little joke for you on Friday next.

I am sorry to hear poor old Parker’ is dead.
You did not know him, but he was a real good fellow,
and hearty friend to me.

I enjoyed my three days in London very much.
Went twice to the theatre, and one of the plays
was ‘Judah.’ Mr. H. A. Jones gave me abox. Saw a
great deal of the Pollocks; met Scott,’ who asked me
to let him put me up for Royal Society Club; played
chess with G. R. Turner.

I have now got to work on my plants and guinea-

igs.
B 1 * Lights of the Church and of Science.’
* Professor Kitchen Parker, F.R.S. 3 Mr. R. Scott, F.R.S.

T 2

276 GHORGE JOHN ROMANES 1890

July 7.

I have just returned from dining in Ch. Ch. The
table is now reduced to three—myself, Prout, and
Strong. The latter is very young. He succeeded
Scott Holland, and is a very good sort. I spent a
couple of hours in his rooms after dinner. Liddon
remains about the same.

I cannot find anyone who knows what translation
of Horace to recommend. The few classical men
who are up appear to be too well acquainted with
the original to have paid any attention to other
versions.

18 Cornwall Terrace: July 9.

I am writing in the library of No. 18, all the
walls of which are gazing at me with reproach. My
tenant host is extremely kind.

Last night I dined with the George Turners, and
afterwards took Marion Pollock to the botanical féte.
All went well until eleven, when there suddenly came
on the most violent shower, almost a waterspout.
We made for the nearest trees, and crowded together
under the same umbrella. We both enjoyed the
extraordinary spectacle; hundreds of people in even-
ing dress, with all conventionality suddenly thrown
to the winds, scrambling in all directions, the men
shining like blackbeetles, and the ladies with their
skirts over their heads.

Tell Fritz’ that this being Thursday, the organ-

1 A pet name for his daughter.

1890 THE COLOURS OF ANIMALS 277

grinder is now grinding away in his hebdomadal
manner.
Yours ever as twelve years ago at the botanical
féte, which always makes romantic
THE PHILOSOPHER.

To Professor Poulton.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: July 16, 1890.

j My dear Poulton,—I went to the tennis ground
yesterday week, but, as I expected, on account of the
rain, found nobody there.

I now write to ask you if you would have any
objection to my borrowing with acknowledgment
figures from your book for mine, supposing the pub-
lishers also consent. In particular figs. 1, 2, 6, 10,
40, and 41.

Having now read the book,’ I may say how
greatly it has delighted me. The whole is a wonder-
ful story, and I congratulate you on the large share
which you have had in adding to this chapter of
Darwinism.

There is only one point I am not quite clear about,
viz. pp. 213-215. It is doubtless an advantage to
the parasites that the caterpillars should warn them
off as having been already ‘occupied.’ But would
not this be rather a disadvantage to the caterpillars
—i.e. to their species? For in this way, it seems to
me, a greater number of caterpillars would become
infested than would be the case in the absence of

1 The Colours of Animals, by KE. B. Poulton, M.A., F.R.S., Inter-
national Scientific Series, vol. lxviii.

278 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1890

such warning. Or is there any point about it which
I do not understand ?

When is your next book coming out? I should
like you to read my reply to Wallace before it does.
Also my re-statement of physiological selection, with
discussion on the principles of Segregation and
Divergence. I hope the whole will be in type before
November. Can you wait till then, or shall I send
type-written MSS. ?

Yours very sincerely,
GrorcEe J. RoManzs.

P.S.—Talking about hon. degrees the last time I
saw you reminded me—but something again put it
out of my head—that I had been wondering why
Oxford or Cambridge does not offer one to F. Galton.
Could you start a movement in that direction? ...

I am getting so convinced about physiological
selection, that I do not care what is said at random,
or without understanding the theory.

Later in the autumn he writes:

To Mrs. Romanes.

I hope to find letters from Ober Ammergau when
I return to Geanies, with a dozen bottles of sulphur
water and several pounds of heather honey. Went
yesterday to see a waterfall, which was wonderfully
beautiful; on the way back met a pony with half a
trap, and afterwards came on the other half with its
previous occupants, Lord and Lady , cut about
the face, but not seriously hurt. There is an awful

1890 LAST DAYS AT GEANIES 279

row going on here in the Free Kirk, which bids fair to
end in bloodshed locally, if not disruption generally.

I am so glad you do not repent going, and am
longing to hear what you think of the play. I took
Ethel and Ernest partridge-shooting, and had tea out-
side. The new hound, ‘Dart,’ has arrived. He is
beautiful, and as gentle as a lamb with the children.
This threw us off our guard, and at tea there was a
horrible scene, ending in the murder of Sharpe.!
The latter barked at him, and five minutes afterwards
was a mangled misery. Have returned Dart with a
civil note, for the sake of Norah and Jack,’ the latter
having only been saved by heroic measures on the
part of Mytsie.

Later in the autumn he wrote:

To Mrs. Henry Pollock. }
Geanies: October 9, 1890.

My dear Mentor,—The lyric is certainly very
pretty, but I am still—and much—more touched
by the unrhymed, and perhaps unconscious, poetry
that accompanies it. We have, indeed, many associ-
ations with Geanies in common ;* and as neither the
joys nor the sorrows of them can ever return into our
lives as they were when they arose, it is perhaps
better that they should be kept in our memories as
they now are, without being overlaid by future
experiences in the same moods and the same cliffs by
the same sea. ‘The water that has passed’ has been

1 A beautiful terrier. 2 Two more dogs.
° This was the last summer at Geanies.

280 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1890

beautiful, even in its sadness; and however long the
wheel of life may still have to go, I do not think it
could have done better work for any of us than
during the years that it has gone at Geanies.
With my philosophic love to both of you, ever
the same,
Gro. J. Romans.

My very dear Mentor,—You are quite too kind to
me. The touching little present has just arrived,
and I am smoking it now. It is just the kind that I
like best. I wonder whether the vendor thought it
was for yourself? Very many thanks.

Ethel sends her love, and tells me to ask you
whether you want a copy of the photo group, where
you do not look like a Mentor.

I enclose payment for the pipe in the form of son-
nets—although I am sure they are not so sweet—and
remain, with love to Marion,

Ever yours most sincerely,
Gro. J. Romans.

This autumn Mr. Romanes delivered the last of
his Edinburgh course of lectures. Giving the lectures
had been a real pleasure, and he liked his Scotch
students, who on their side were keenly appreciative
and intelligent.

He was alone at Geanies for a few days before
leaving for Edinburgh, and a letter written at this
time shows for the first time a foreboding of failing ,
health ; but when the headaches left him the fore-
boding vanished, and there was no real idea of serious
mischief.

1890 LAST DAYS AT GEANIES 281

To his Wife.

As it is only a few hours since you left, there is
not much in the way of news, only that the house
seems very lonely. I am inclined to agree with
Sandy, who said while we were out that ‘ Please he
had never felt so full of sorrow since he was at
Geanies as he did when he saw the mistress driving
away; it was all he could do to keep from bursting
out crying.’ Give my love to the ‘ Fair One.’’

I ordered breakfast at 8.30, and heard Fritz and
Ernest their Latin, very much impressed by the
result. I had no idea they knew so much. Dinner
tranferred to 7.30 so as to admit of Fritz keeping me
company. ,

I have been shooting with Pat Sellar. I can
shoot better but not so well as I used. Partridges
very wild, so we only bagged six brace.

Geanies: November 1890.

I really have three of your dear letters to answer.
I did not write yesterday. I have had one continu-
ous headache; it is now nearly away, but the matter
is getting serious, and I have written to Edward,’
to send the ‘home trainer’ to Oxford, so that I
may lose no time in giving his cure (exercise) a
trial.

Don’t get low about me; I begin to doubt if these
headaches are due to gout at all, and somehow or
other I shall find a means of preventing them.

1 A pet name for Mrs. Ingham. * Mr. E. B. Turner, F.R.C.S.

282 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1890

I am sorry for myself, my work, and most of all
for you; but we must take illness as it comes, and be
glad it is no worse.

Geanies : October 31.

I will not disappoint you about the sonnet, which
you expect to be in the vein of ‘ Weltschmerz,’ and
therefore send you the first of the series which I wrote
in the small hours, after reading your favourite Psalm.!
There was only one verse that remained appropriate
to me, so I took it as a text.

The principal thing that has happened to-day is
my having seen on the shore a sea otter. It was
lying on a rock, and I came upon it at such close
quarters I could have hit it with a stone. But it
was so quick that I had not even time to fire my
gun.

I may return the compliment as to letters. I
did not intend to send the sonnet even to you when
I wrote it, but afterwards thought I ought to have
no secrets.

Fritz and Ernest came out shooting. I am all
right as to hitting;? and my head is perfectly well.
Jack* has been very Jackish. I told him we
were all going to leave Geanies. He said, ‘ Geanies
belongs to us.’ I answered, ‘No, it belongs to the
Murrays.’ ‘Part of it belongs to me,’ he continued.
‘How is that?’ said I. ‘ Because I was born here.’
What would Victor Horsley say to this for early
appreciation of rights conferred by birth ?

1 Psalm xxvii.

2 He had slipped on the rocks and hurt his arm.
8 His third son.

1890 LIFE AT OXFORD 233

Ernest and Gerald are very happy. I allow them
to play with the fire when they are with me, and
this I find to be very popular.

To Mrs. Romanes.
Edinburgh : November 28, 1890.

My lectures are now concluded, and 1 took an
affectionate farewell of the class amid much en-
thusiasm on their side.

There is no news to give. I play chess with Mrs.
Butcher and read MSS. which Professor Butcher
lends me of his own; pay many calls, have sundry
talks with professors that come to dine with Ewart,
and so on.

Yesterday we had here what at Cambridge used
to be called a ‘ Perpendicular,’ twenty students to
supper. Mrs. Butcher and Miss Trench came in to
help to entertain them; the latter sang Irish songs.

I am going to give an additional lecture to the
class on the controversy in ‘ Nature.’!

I send you a report of my lecture, that you may
see how orthodox I was. Sellar? was at the lecture,
and told me that I reminded him of some professor
at St. Andrews, who had told him as a fact that he
(the St. Andrews professor) always made a point of
alluding to Providence in an introductory lecture, and
afterwards ‘ threw him aside !’

The sonnet alluded to in one of the letters (p. 282)
is so beautiful that it isinserted here. It shows better
1 On ‘Physiological Selection.’ See Nature, vol. xlii. pp. 5, 7, and
vol. xliii. pp. 79 and 127.
2 The late Professor Sellar.

284 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1891

than any words could do the attitude of George
Romanes’ mind. Profoundly sincere, anxious, almost
unduly anxious, to give no indulgence to his own
longings, to state to himself and to others unsparingly,
unflinchingly, what appeared to him the as yet irre-
futable arguments against the Faith, when he was
alone he relaxed and poured out his inmost heart.

‘I ask not for Thy love, O Lord: the days
Can never come when anguish shall atone.
Enough for me were but Thy pity shown,

To me as to the stricken sheep that strays,
With ceaseless cry for unforgotten ways—
O lead me back to pastures I have known,
Or find me in the wilderness alone,
And slay me, as the hand of mercy slays.

I ask not for Thy love; nor e’en so much
As for a hope on Thy dear breast to lie;

But be Thou still my shepherd—still with such
Compassion as may melt to such a ery;

That so I hear Thy feet, and feel Thy touch,
And dimly see Thy face ere yet I die.’

In November Mr. Romanes came formally into resi-
dence, and at first nothing could have been happier
than his Oxford life.

He simply revelled in the facilities for work which
the splendidly equipped laboratories afforded, and he
once said, ‘ that the laboratory alone had made the
move from London to Oxford worth while!’

He set to work on his book, ‘ Darwin, and after
Darwin,’ and on many experiments bearing on Pro-
fessor Weismann’s theories and on some other points.

About this time Mr. Romanes was much interested
in a scheme for promoting the establishment of a gar-
den or farm for the purpose of studying questions of
hereditary transmission, or heredity. His object was

1s91 IDEA OF AN INSTITUT TRANSFORMISTE 285

to afford facilities which at present do not exist for
observing the modifications produced in animals and
plants by subjecting them during long periods and in
successive generations to suitable external conditions,
and for testing the transmissibility of the modifications
so produced. He was anxious that such an Institution
should be founded in connection with one of the Uni-
versities, and with this view, circulated the following
memorandum. As yet the idea has come to nothing,
but possibly the project may one day be revived.

‘AN INSTITUT TRANSFORMISTE.’

In an English translation of a lecture which was
recently delivered by M. Giard, as Professor of Evo-
lutionary Biology in France, there occurs the following
passage :

‘Tf evolutionists must content themselves in most
cases with experiments carried on in nature, or those
of breeders, instead of applying themselves to verifica-
tions made with all the rigour of modern scientific
precision, is it not because of the deplorable insuf-
ficiency of our laboratories? Itis astonishing that
in no country, not even where science is held in
greatest honour, does there yet exist an Institut
transformuste devoted to the long and costly experi-
ments now indispensable for the progress of evolu-
tionary biology.’

That an institution of the kind in question would
tend to promote the solution of problems in ‘ evolu-
tionary biology,’ it seems needless to argue. Many
of the most desirable experiments in heredity and
variation, for example, require such prolonged time

936 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1s90-

and such constant attention, that it is practically im-
possible for individual workers to undertake them ;
and, therefore, as M. Giard observes, they have never
been undertaken. But if there were an Institut
transformiste to which material might be sent from
any part of the world, with directions as to its treat-
ment, biologists of all countries would be furnished
with an opportunity of experimentally testing any
ideas which might occur to them in regard to these
or kindred matters.

Again, it seems needless to remark that England
ought to be regarded as the natural territory of an
establishment of this character; that the establish-
ment itself should be situated in the vicinity of others
which are already devoted to the study of morphology
and physiology; and that sufficient land should belong
to the Institut to admit of plots of ground being set
apart for researches on plants, as well as buildings
for the accommodation of animals.

In order to satisfy all these conditions, the Institut
ought to be established either in Oxford or Cambridge ;
and at least, one skilled naturalist, one competent
gardener, and one trustworthy keeper ought to be
resident. This would involve an annual expenditure
of between 3007. and 400/. But the capital sum
which would have to be sunk in the purchase of land
and the erection of buildings would not be consider-
able ; because, in the first instance, at all events, two
or three acres of ground would probably be sufficient ;
while the animal houses would be chiefly—if not ex-
clusively—required for the accommodation of small
mammalia, birds, insects, and aquatic organisms.

1891 OXFORD LIFE 987

Nevertheless, seeing that an initial expenditure
of at least 1,0007. would be needed for the purposes
just mentioned, as well as an annual income of at
least 400/., and seeing that even this much money is
not likely to be forthcoming for objects of a purely
scientific nature, the scheme on behalf of which we
solicit your opinion is the following.

From inquiries which we have made here, we
think it is probable that the University would take
up the matter, or, at any rate, render important
assistance thereto, if the Hebdomadal Council were
satisfied as to the desirability of the project from a
scientific point of view. It is on this account that we
have ventured to address you upon the subject. The
appended memorial is being sent, together with this
circular letter, to all the other leading biologists in
this country ; and if you could see your way to signing
the former, you would render additional weight to the
body of authoritative opinion which it will eventually
convey to the University.

January 22, 1891.

My dear Poulton,—I am very sorry that, being
already engaged for to-morrow, I cannot attend the
meeting. But I should like to join the Society!
Only, please, postpone any suggestion about lecturing,
as this term I shall be dreadfully busy, between the
book and the experiments. H. has certainly been
very successful over a very difficult experiment. I
tried it in an elaborate way. But I lacked assistance
for the mechanical performance, and so intended to
do it here this term. Now Iam saved the trouble,

' The Oxford Natural History Society.

288 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1891

but have gained experience. This prevents me from
regarding H.’s result as final, although, as you say,
valuable. My scepticism is founded on a queer freak
of heredity, which my own work showed me; but as
I think I spoke too much about the experiments I
was trying, in future I shal adopt Weismann’s method
of silence before publication.
Yours ever,
Gero. J. Romans.

One of the experiments Mr. Romanes tried in the
summers of 1891-93 was as to whether animals
completely isolated would reproduce the real sounds
natural to their kind. In other words, whether these
vocal sounds were due to imitation. Through the
kindness of Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Romanes got the
permission of the Trinity Brethren to try these experi-
ments on lighthouses situated on lonely islands or
rocks; he selected puppies, chickens, &c., but the
results were not decisive. The puppies barked and
the young cocks crowed, but Mr. Romanes was not able
entirely to establish to his own satisfaction that the
isolation had been complete.

Experiments were also carried on bearing on
Hehotropism and on Seed Germination. Of these
mention will be made later.

In the spring of 1891, he paid a visit to Paris and
saw M. Pasteur and his laboratory, and also M. Brown-
Séquard, in whose work he was specially interested.

And, apart from his work, Oxford and Oxford life
were great sources of enjoyment. He made many
new friends, and keenly enjoyed the institution, so
characteristic of Oxford, of ‘ walks.’

Intimacies seemed to grow up quickly, and he

1891 OXFORD 989

often spoke of the extreme kindliness, the ea
ness’ which marked Oxford society.

Of all the friends made in these four years,
Mr. Romanes undoubtedly was most drawn to the
Rey. Charles Gore, who became in a very short time
a true and valued and much-loved friend.

It is very difficult, very often misleading and even
impertinent to speak of what one man owes to another
in the way of direct or indirect intellectual or spiritual
help. But those few persons who really watched and
could see the workings of George Romanes’ mind, saw
that these Oxford years were, even before the first
beginnings of fatal illness, years of rapid growth in
what perhaps may be termed spiritual perception.

In 1891 Mr. Gore’s famous Bampton Lectures were
preached. Mr. Romanes heard them all, and was
intensely interested by them; he wrote many notes
on them for his own private use, notes by no means
always in agreement with them, and in his ‘Thoughts
on Religion’ he refers to them.

Many of his older friends were clergymen, and
he was once much amused by hearing that a
scientific friend in London had said, ‘How on earth
will Romanes stand the clerical atmosphere of
Oxford?’ Another time, a very eminent scientific man
asked him his opinion of Liberal High Churchmen,
‘Do you really think these people believe what they
say ?’ to which Mr. Romanes replied that he knew
several pretty intimately, and he was sure they would
all go to the stake on behalf of their Faith.

In the spring of 1891 Mr. Romanes was elected
by the committee a member of the Atheneum Club.
The Journal notes :

‘Pleasant dinners at Merton, Keble, &c. Visit

U

990 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1891

from the Gills,) which we much enjoyed. Lord?
and Lady Compton, from the 6th to the 8th of June.
He delighted us with his magnificent singing.’

This summer, for the first time, Scotland and
shooting were given up, and Mr. Romanes, accom-
panied by his wife and daughter, tried what the
Engadine would do for his incessant headaches.

He enjoyed this tour, especially three weeks at
Tarasp, in the lower Engadine, where he met his old
friend Protessor Joachim and also Professor Victor
Carus. On the way back the Romanes stayed with
Mr. H. Graham, M.P., at his lovely country home
near Heidelberg, enjoying themselves much, but
failing to see the famous ghost which is said to
haunt the place. In the autumn, in spite of often-
recurring headaches, he struggled on with his work
and lectured in one or two provincial towns.

- He says in one of his letters at this time: ‘ There
is much excitement in Oxford to-day over the
announcement that Paget is to be the new Dean of
Christ Church. Of course we are greatly delighted.
As he said to me to-day, “‘ We may now look forward to
being close neighbours for not a few years to come.” ’

Journal, Nov., Birmingham Festiwal.—The ‘ Mes-
siah’ and Dvorak’s ‘ Requiem,’ Parry’s ‘ Blest Pair of
Sirens,’ which one never hears too often. Went to
Compton Wynyates, a splendid old house of temp.
Henry VII. Only Lady Compton at home, but we
much enjoyed our little visit. Went up to town and
saw the Edmund Gosses and various other old friends.
Saw Miss Rehan and her company in their last per-
formance, ‘A Last Word.’ Poor play, but well acted.

1 The Astronomer Royal at the Cape and his wife.
2 The present Marquess of Northampton.

1891 THE ROMANES LECTURE 291

To Mrs. Romanes.

Atheneum Club: November 30, 1891.

I have had a jolly time. Driving straight here,
I met Huxley, Foster, Lockyer, and at the Royal
Society everybody of scientific persuasion.
December 23.

The fog is so frightful it seems probable I shall
not get to Cambridge, so I dined with the Pollocks
and slept at H. Paget’s. It is jolly about Mr.
Gladstone.’

It was during this autumn that Mr. Romanes re-
solved to found a lectureship at Oxford on the lines of
the Rede Lectures at Cambridge, and after consulting
various friends, chiefly the present Master of Pem-
broke,” the idea was submitted to the University and
the offer was accepted. The preface, which is to be
prefixed to the first volume of Lectures, gives the
Founder’s ideas.

Founder’s Preface.

The primary object of this Lectureship is to
secure a perpetual series of discourses in the University
of Oxford under the conditions laid down in the fore-
going Statute. But seeing that these conditions are
necessarily of a general character, I add the following
suggestions with regard to certain matters of detail,
in order that, as far as from time to time may seem
expedient, the proceedings may be conducted in
accordance with my wishes.

2 Mr. Gladstone's consent to be the first Romanes lecturer is here
referred to. 2 The Rey. Bartholomew Price, D.D., F.R.S.

Une

999 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1891—

(1) I desire that the selection of lecturers be
irrespective of nationality, and determined with refer-
ence either (a) to general eminence in art, literature,
or science, or (2) to special claims for discussing any
particular subject of high interest at the time.

(2) I deem it desirable that foreigners, otherwise
eligible, should not be disqualified from receiving invi-
tations to lecture merely because they may not be
able to do so in English. And, in order to meet such
cases, I suggest that the translated addresses should
be delivered before the University by some competent —
reader (to be selected by the Vice-Chancellor) in the
presence of their authors.

(3) I further suggest that the same method of
delivery should be adopted in cases where age or
infirmity would render the voice of the lecturer
inaudible, or indistinct, to any portion of his audience.
And I hope that neither age nor infirmity, any more
than inability to speak the English language, will be
deemed a hindrance to the issuing of invitations to
the men of high distinction in their several depart-
ments. For, on the one hand, in order to have
attained such distinction, it must often happen that
such men will have attained old age, while, on the
other hand, it is of more importance that they should
be represented in these decennial volumes than that
men of less eminence should be chosen in view of their

superiority as lecturers.
G. J. Romanzs.

To the great satisfaction of the whole University,
Mr. Gladstone most generously consented to give the

is9 «=6C©M RR. GLADSTONE’ THE FIRST LECTURER 293

first lecture, which consent he signified in the follow-
ing letter :
Grand Hotel, Biarritz: December 18, 1891.

Dear Mr. Romanes,—Until I received your kind
letter I reposed undoubtingly in the belief that the
Vice-Chancellor had accepted my answer as the
answer which best met the case.’ I thought and
think it right, for no one knows my poverty except
myself. But Oxford is Oxford, and I think that if she
desired me to climb up the spire of Salisbury, I should
attempt it, or play the Greculus eswriens in any
manner she desired. Your letter opens to me unex-
pectedly the fact that there is a desire, and that the »
proposal was not simply a courtesy.

I therefore thankfully and respectfully accept ;
secretly relying a good deal, as I own, on the fact that
there is (if I recollect the V.C.’s letter rightly) a good
deal of time before me, and that the chances of in-
termediate reflection may bring up something to
the surface which is not now there, for I own my
perplexity continues as to the chance of making any
presentation not wholly worthless. But enough of
this : and let me thank you very much for the interest
you, who have so high a title, have personally taken
in bringing me to the front.

We are much delighted with this place; more
eminently, I think, a sea place than any other I Happen
to know.

I am sure, let me add, that you will make. my

? Mr. Gladstone had declined at first, but yielded to a second ec
request from the Founder.

294 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1892

apologies to the Vice-Chancellor; for I am sensible
that the alte:ed reply may seem less than respectful
to the resident Head of the University.
Believe me, most faithfully yours,
W. EH. Guapstone.

It had been arranged that the lectures (which the
University, rather against the Founder’s wish, decided
should be called the ‘ Romanes Lectures ’) were to be
civen in the Trinity Term, but owing to the General
Election of 1891, Mr. Gladstone postponed the de-
livery of his inaugural lecture until October 1892.

Journal, Mareh 1892.—The Comptons have been
here for Norman’s baptism, which was a strikingly
pretty ceremony in cathedral at evening service with
the choir. Our Dean and the President of Magdalen,
as well as Lady Compton, stood sponsors, so the boy
is well provided. The students at St. Hugh’s Hall
decorated the font, and as the boy’s second name is
Hugh, he is.a special protégé of the little Hall.

Apri 1.—We spent a week at Malvern, in com-
pany with the Walter Hobhouses, and then went on
to Denton Manor,! where a company of the wise, inclu-
ding Ray Lankester, Professors Poulton and Shadworth
Hodgson,and Mr. Sully, were. Also others, including
Lady Cecil Scott Montagu, who walked abroad with
a divining rod, a real act of courage considering who
were among the party.

At Malvern Mr. Romanes wrote a sonnet which,
in the light of after years, was a sad prophecy.

* The home of Sir William and the Hon. Lady Welby-Gregory.

1892 A SONNET 295

MALVERN 1892

*To doze upon a sunny hill in June,

And hear the lullaby that Nature lends;

To drink the cup that sweet contentment blends
With sweetlier love of those whose hearts shall soon
Reverberate with joy, as they attune

Their praise to praises that achievement sends ;

This is to feel that bounteous Nature bends
A mother’s smile on manhood in its noon.

But when the shadows of the twilight come,
And high Ambition needs must fold his wings,

While voices both of hearts and hills grow dumb,
Can she still brmg the smile that now she brings ?
Yea, by the memory of brighter things,

T’ll trust her in the night that calls me home.’

Journal, May and June 1892.—Had a delightful
visit from the Butchers and Mr. H. Graham, later on
the Comptons, and Mr. Edmund Gosse, full of witty
and wise sayings. Lord Compton sang more divinely
than ever, and the Principal of Brasenose played the
piano. It was a real musical feast.

Professor Le Conte came to stay here; we had
Mr. Gore and one or two others to meet him.

To Miss C. E. Romanes.

94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford: June 10, 1892.

My dearest Charlotte,—I received your letter of
the 6th inst., together with the pair of slippers; the
latter are the very things which are required when
occasion again arises.

Ever since you left we have been having Italian

296 GEORGE JOHN. ROMANES 1892

weather, the only objection to which being, that for
my taste the sunshine is too continuous.

We have had staying with us Professor Palgrave
and his daughter. I am going to take her to the
Conversazione of the Royal Society on Wednesday
next, as Ethel is going to stay behind for her political
work. We have also had Lord Justice Fry, with
his wife and daughter, staying with us for two or
three days.

I have got a promise from Professor Huxley to give
the second Romanes Lecture, provided he is able to
do so next year. It will be an interesting occasion if
ne can; because he has not lectured for the last five
or SIX years.

Iam glad you like my book, which is selling off
very well; but, as you know, the second volume will
be much more interesting.

We are all well, and, with united love to both, I
remain yours ever the same,

Gro. J. Romanzs.

To Mr. Huzley.

94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford: June 18, 1892.

Dear Mr. Huxley,—I write to thank you for the
large and latest instalment of your wisdom which
has just been sent me by your publishers. As far as
I am personally concerned, its publication at the
present time is opportune; for having recently lost
the sight of one eye by effusion of serum on the
retina, | am not allowed to read or write. So I am
dependent upon others for my reading, and under

is92 TERMINAL PHALANGES OF THE PRIMATES 297

such circumstances it is a great matter to have your
interesting work to set upon.

My eye trouble entirely prevents me from carry-
ing on my experiments in heredity, except by deputy;
this to me is most provoking, as they have been
yielding very interesting results; and having now
trained my hands for the performance of the more
delicate among them, I am doubtful where I can
find the deputy which I need. I mention this in case
you should happen to know of any young physiologist
who, possessing some operative skill, would care to
join in the research. I am ordered six months’ rest
from any kind of intellectual work, and as in any
case I could not finish the second instalment of my
work upon ‘Darwin and After Darwin’ by means of
dictation, this will have to stand over until next
year.

A new investigation is here described.

94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford: March 27, 1892.

My dear Schifer,—I think I have found a new
ordinal character peculiar to the Primates—viz. a nude
condition of the terminal phalanges. This does not
occur in any other order of mammals that I have
looked at, but in all species of primates from Lemurs
to Man, as far, at all events, as I have been able to
examine. Now I want to see whether hair-follicles,
or vestiges thereof, can be found in the terminal pha-
langes of any species of the order. So I am making
a number of sections of the skin of the backs of
the terminal phalanges of fingers and toes, of man

908 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

(adult and foetal), apes, monkeys, baboons, and lemurs.
Hitherto I cannot detect (mor can Kent) any signs
or vestiges of follicles. But I should much like you
to look over some of the specimens (a few would be
enough), in order to see whether your trained eyes
would be also unable to trace any rudiments of follicles.
If you would care to do this, of course I should acknow-
ledge my obligations in a paper which I am prepar-
ing on the subject.
Yours very truly,
G. J. Romanzs.

‘ Darwin, and after Darwin’ appeared in the spring
of 1892.

It was a book which was written, so to speak, with
the writer’s life-blood, it was a great burden on him
trom the moment he commenced it, and one of his
greatest sorrows was his inability to finish it.

It is curious to those who know Mr. Romanes’ mind
intimately to note the exceeding severity, the almost
harsh manner in which he treated the theological
questions involved in the doctrines called, for conve-
nience sake, ‘Darwinism.’ As more and more he
found himself yielding on the side of emotion, of
moral convictions, inclination, of spiritual need to
the relinquished faith, so much the more did he re-
solve to be utterly true, to face every difficulty, to
push no objection aside, to leave nothing unsaid—to
be, in fact, absolutely and entirely honest. As a friend
after his death, speaking of this very book, said, ‘ It
was his righteousness which made him seem so hard.’

Yet there is a ring of hope of something which
will one day turn to faith in the words which end the
book:

1892 ON ‘DARWINISM’ 299

‘Upon the whole, then, it seems to me that such
evidence as we have is against rather than in favour
of the inference, that if design be operative in
animate nature it has reference to animal enjoyment
or well-being, as distinguished from animal improve-
ment or evolution. And if this result should be
found distasteful to the religious mind—if it be felt
that there is no desire to save the evidences of design
unless they serve at the same time to testify to the
nature of that design as beneficent—I must once
more observe that the difficulty thus presented to
theism is not a difficulty of modern creation. On
the contrary, it has always constituted the funda-
mental difficulty with which natural theologians
have had to contend. The external world appears,
in this respect, to be at variance with our moral
sense ; and when the antagonism is brought home to
the religious mind, it must ever be with a shock of
terrified surprise. It has been newly brought home
to us by the generalisations of Darwin, and there-
fore, as I said at the beginning, the religious thought
of our generation has been more than ever staggered
by the question—Where is now thy God? But I
have endeavoured to show that the logical standing
of the case has not been materially changed; and when
this cry of reason pierces the heart of Faith it re-
mains for Faith to answer now, as she always answered
before—and answered with that trust which is at
once her beauty and her life—Verily thou art a God
that hidest Thyself.’

Jn the spring of this year Mr. Romanes wrote for

300 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1892

the wedding-cay of a dearly loved friend, Mrs.
W. Ingham, his last ‘made-to-order’ sonnet. He
wrote it in the train as he was going North to this
peculiarly bright and happy wedding, and he was
much struck with the sunniness and joyousness of
the country bathed in June sunshine. Yet in this
sonnet there is a touch of sadness, a hint of shadows
soon to close in.

To Annie.
(June 1, 1892.)

Through all the gladness of the marriage bells
Methinks I hear a distant echo chime,
Wherewith their rhythm, wedded to a rhyme,

Is wafted by this breeze of June, and tells

Of brooding Death in sound of funeral knells.
‘The new supplants the old,’ it rings, and Time
That ’gins to steal our beauty in its prime

Shall ever change the heart where Heaven dwells.
My heart for thee can never cease to beat ;

But if to thine it so should seem to-day

That England never smiled a smile so sweet
Among her meadows decked with bridal May,
Remember still the moorland far away,

Whose heather blushed with joy around thy feet.

June 1892 brought the first warnings of serious
illness. One day Mr. Romanes announced at lunch
that he noticed a blind spot in one eye. He con-
sulted his friend Mr. Doyne, the well-known oculist,
who from the first thought seriously of the case.

He went up to town, and saw various doctors,
and had some thoughts of taking a voyage. He
was, however, well enough to attend the Conversa-’
zione at the Royal Society, and showed some ex-
periments on rabbits and rats which bore on questions
of acquired characters. He writes: jhe

1892 ILLNESS 301

To Mrs. Romanes.

I have been thinking of you a great deal, and,
with a somewhat literal application of a certain ex-
pletive addressed by a fast man to his eyes, am
driven to address you through my goggles.

Nettleship has appointed to-morrow morning to
see me, so I shall not be able to get home sooner than
SIX eleck train. Don’t trouble to meet me, as I must
take a cab for the rabbits and rats. The latter are
now at the Royal Society, where ample space has
been provided for their exhibition. The Zoological
paper! went off very well, and Flower made a very
good remark on it, the substance of which I will tell
you when we meet, it had not previously occurred
to me. Your letter to the Pollocks never reached
them, so they had given me up. They were as
enthusiastically kind as usual, and very sympathetic
about my eyes.

He returned to Oxford, and was persuaded to rest,
and not to go to London again to pay a promised
visit to Professor Palgrave.

To Miss C. EH. Romanes.

94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford: June 18, 1892.

My dearest Charlotte,—Your little differences of
Opinion with regard to the rats are very amusing to
me, and I quite see how the matter stands.

1 On the work alluded to in a letter to Professor Schafer.

702 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1892

Tam very glad to hear of your improvement in
general health, and also of James’ continued vigour.
As regards myself I have no very satisfactory ac-
count to give. The headaches indeed are not worse
—if anything they are better; but the gout is at
work on other parts of this vile body, and the latest
assault is a very serious one for a man of my pursuits.
About ten days ago I found myself partially blind in
the right eye—the upper half of the field of vision
being totally obliterated. I have seen an Oxford
and also a London oculist, who have both examined
the eye and pronounce the sudden seizure to be one of
serous effusion upon the retina. It seems probable
that the impairment of vision will be permanent, and
so prevent all operative work where any delicacy is
required. The blindness is so complete, that if I
look about an inch below the electric light placed at a
distance of a very few yards, I am not able to per-
ceive any luminosity. Meanwhile, I have to wear
the darkest of possible goggles, and generally to live
the life of a blind man. Per contra, this may prove
a blessing in disguise, as it compels me to abstain
from work for some considerable time to come, and
I had been advised to this course on account of the
headaches. How I am to spend the six months’
rest which is prescribed I have not yet determined,
Shooting will be probably out of the question, as I
cannot use the left eye in any form of recreation,
My idea is rather to go to Egypt and Palestine, to
take a voyage to the Cape, or in some other such
way to break my usual habits without altogether
wasting time.

1892 --- FJLLNESS 303\

All the rest of the household are flourishing, and
with love to both,
I remain yours ever the same,
GEORGE.

_ In a day or two a second blind spot appeared, and
now the doctors took a very serious view of his case.
Life and sight alike were threatened, and instant
rest and quiet were ordered. For about three weeks
he remained in bed, until the extreme pulse tension
was reduced, and then it seemed as if hope might
be entertained of years of life, if only care were
taken about diet, and work, and thought.

Now began the two years of quiet, steadfast, en-
durance; no one could realise from his quiet manner
and cheerful talk how great was the inconvenience
caused by the affection of his eyes, no one ever found
him anything but unselfish and gentle. The one
difficulty was to persuade him not to work, and this
was almost impossible. He was almost feverishly
anxious to finish his book, to work out experiments
he had been planning; and as time went on, and he
thought and pondered as he had ever done on the
ultimate mysteries of life and being, other books
were planned, other courses of reading mapped out.

Just then a letter came from Canon Scott-
Holland which much touched the recipient.

Mr. Holland writes :

‘T hear sad news of you through Philip Waggett.
You have passed under the sorest trial perhaps that
could have been laid on your courage, your hopeful-
ness, your peace.

I trust, indeed, that there is much to look for

304 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1892

yet of recovered power and renewed work, but, for
the moment, there must be anxiety, and the bitter
strain of disappointment, and the rough curb of pain.
You are assured of the deep sympathy of many warm-
hearted friends to whom you have always shown
most generous kindness, and I venture to rank my-
self among them. We shall remember you often and
anxiously.

It is a tremendous moment when first one is
called upon to join the great army of those who suffer.

That vast world of love and pain opens suddenly
to admit us one by one within its fortress.

We are afraid to enter into the land, yet you
will, I know, feel how high is the call. It is as a
trumpet speaking to us, that cries aloud—‘ It is your
turn—endure.’ Play your part. As they endured
before you, so now, close up the ranks—be patient
and strong as they were. Since Christ, this world of
pain is no accident untoward or sinister, but a lawful
department of life, with experiences, interests, adven-
tures, hopes, delights, secrets ofits own. ‘These are all
thrown open to us as we pass within the gates—
things that we could never learn or know or see, so
long as we were well.

God help you to walk through this world now
opened to you as through a kingdom, regal, royal, and
wide and glorious. My warmest sympathies to your
wife.’

The first weeks of illness passed away, the phy-
sicians seemed more satisfied with his condition,
and he was sent to Carlsbad, and after five weeks

1892 ILLNESS 305

there, came the last bit of pleasant foreign travel.
He and his wife travelled in the Tyrol and in the
Bavarian Highlands, and Mr. Romanes was able to
enjoy the glorious scenery with what seemed keener
appreciation than ever ; he especially took a fancy to
Parten Kirchen, in Bavaria, and planned a return to it
another year with his children.

He got as far as Meran, and much enjoyed meet-
ing Mr. and Mrs. Lecky (Mr. Lecky’s works were
among the very few historical books he read with any
real pleasure). And on his return, Sir Andrew Clark
was encouraging, holding out hopes of a return to
health: ‘ You’ve made a bid for recovery,’ he said in
his genial way. It was thought best that Mr. Romanes
should spend the winter in a warm climate, and Ma-
deira was chosen.

To Mr. Hucley.
Atheneum Club, Pall Mall, S.W.: October 12, 1892.

My dear Mr. Huxley,—My wife tells me that she
saw you in the street on the day of our arrival here.
Since then I have been ordered by Sir A. Clark and
Dr. Brunton to spend the winter in Madeira. There-
fore it occurs to me to ask whether during your
residence in those parts you came across any matters
of natural history which you might think worth
following up. Also, whether there is any literature
that it might be wise for me to consult before
starting.

Above all things, according to Sir A. C., I am to
‘ cultivate tranquillity,’ so any observations I may
hope to make must be of the pottering kind. But
the oculists tell me I may now use my eyes—or

x

306 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1892,

rather as much of them as are left to use. Victor
Horsley has undertaken to continue the hereditary
experiments.

My general condition is still said to be ‘ critical,’
and I do not myself think that Carlsbad has proved
to be of any benefit. Indeed, after a somewhat
extensive acquaintance with mineral spas in general,
I have come to the conclusion that their popularity
as ‘cures’ is chiefly due to the survival of a pre-
scientific faith in the virtue of drugs supplied by
Providence. On pressing my Carlsbad doctor as to
why one might not drink the waters anywhere else
(seeing that they contain nothing but soluble salts),
he answered that perhaps they might hold ‘some
electricity or magnetism’ that would escape if the
waters were not ‘fresh’!

Many thanks for your kind letter to Carlsbad.
The G. O. M., I hear, is hard at work on the
approaching lecture.

G. J. Romanzs.

Then came the first Romanes lecture, which was
a great success in every way. Mr. Gladstone called
it ‘An Academic Sketch,’ and nothing could have
been a happier inauguration of the series. It was a
memorable scene. The Prime Minister in his doctor’s
robes, the crowded Sheldonian theatre, the eloquent
lecture, the inspiring words of which came lke a
trumpet call to Oxford’s sons, ending with her motto,
‘Dominus illuminatio mea.’

The few days of Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone’s visit to
Oxford were days of real enjoyment to Mr. Romanes.
The Journal notes : ‘We had a pleasant luncheon party

1892 THE FIRST ROMANES LECTURE 307

for the Gladstones and Lord Acton, who was also in
Oxford; also a breakfast party on the morning after the
lecture, to which, among others, came the Principal
of St. Edmund’s Hall.’ I put him next Mr. Gladstone,
and the consequence was a Dante talk, to Lady
Compton’s great satisfaction. Mr. Gladstone’s talk
was wonderful, and no one would have suspected that
he had any political cares whatsoever, or that the
Election of 1892 was only just over.’

On the day of the lecture we had a delightful time
before lunch. Mary Paget and Lord Compton sang
for an hour, and put us in good humour.

It was with real regret that good-bye was said to
the illustrious guests, with hopes of, future meetings
never to be realised.

Mr. Huxley accepted the invitation which the
Vice-Chancellor permitted Mr. Romanes to give him
privately. The following delightful letter gives his
final decision ; ?

Hodeslea, Staveley Road, Eastbourne ; November 1, 1892.

My dear Mrs. Romanes,—I have just written to
the Vice-Chancellor to say that I hope to meet his
disposition any time next May.

My wife is ‘larking’—I am sorry to use such a
word, but what she is pleased to tell me of her
doings leaves me no alternative—in London, whither
I go on Monday to fetch her back—in chains, if
necessary. But I know, in the matter of being ‘ taken
in and done for’ by your hospitable selves, I may, for
once, speak for her as much as myself.

1 The Rev. E. Moore, D.D.

? Since this letter has been in type the world has had to lament Mr,
Huxley’s death.
x2

308 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES © 1892

Don’t ask anybody above the rank of the younger
son of a peer, because I shall not be able to go into
dinner before him or her, and that part of my dignity
is naturally what I prize most.

Would you not like me to come in my P.C.! suit ?
All ablaze with gold, and costing a sum with which
I could buy, oh! so many books.

Only if your late experiences should prompt you to
instruct your other guests not to contradict me—don’t
—I rather like it.

Ever yours very truly,
T. H. Huxuey.

Bon voyage! You can tell Mr. Jones’ that I will
have him brought before the Privy Council, and fined
as in the good old days, if he does not treat you
properly.

To Mr. Huczley.
St. Aldate’s, Oxford: October 25, 1892.

My dear Mr. Huxley,—I am much obliged to you
for your information, general and particular, about
Madeira.

You will have seen from the newspapers that the
G.O.M. function has duly come off here with all
possible pomp and enthusiasm. Ray Lankester
called it ‘George’s Show,’ and certainly as a show
it was well worth seeing. Iam sorry to say that the
last telegraphic account I have received of his con-
dition from his sister to Sir H. Acland is rather
alarming. It will be asad blow to English biology
if he should die.

1 Privy Councillor. * The proprietor of an hotel in Madeira. —

1892 MADEIRA 309

I will now see that you receive an official invita-
tion from the V.C. to deliver your lecture next May
Term. And Iam glad to think that there will be no
possibility of the lecturer following the Premier in
almost totally ignoring the existence of science,
Bacon and Newton being the only names that he
mentioned in this connection. Please remember (in
case I should forget to to tell you later on) that when
your lecture comes off you had better follow the
precedent set by Mr. G., and wear your red D.C.L.
gown.

With united kind regards to Mrs. Huxley and
yourself,

I remain, yours very sincerely,
G. J. Romanes.

Then came the departure for Madeira, which was
a real trial, for never before had Christmas been spent
away from home. But the change seemed to do him
much good. Save for occasional days of headache he
was very bright and well, and worked at his book and
wrote several articles for the ‘Contemporary Review ’
on Professor Weismann’s theory. But poetry he
could not manage.

To Mrs. Henry Pollock,

Madeira : December 18, 1892,
My dear Mentor,—I fear you must have been
thinking that I am either very ill or very heartless not
to have written ere this. Yet neither is the case.
Ill I assuredly am, but not so much as to have pre-
vented me from sending you a letter for the marriage

310 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1892

day. The fact is I have been trying to write a sonnet
for that occasion ever since I came out here, and can-
not. Since my breakdown in June I have entirely
lost the power of poetising; I suppose it will come
back if my general health should ever return, but still
I did think that such an occasion ought to have in-
spired me. Nothing further than rhymes, however,
would come, so the day passed over without my in-
tended contribution to its memorials.

So, dear Mentor, do not think hardly of me. For
indeed both you and Marion have been much in my
thoughts; and for you especially I know this time
must be one of many and varied feelings of the kind
that sink deepest into the heart.! So not only my
old affection, but a new sympathy, is with you—a
sympathy in the joy as in the grief of it.

Ethel will have told you what little has to be told
about our uneventful life here. As I have said to all
my correspondents, it is the island that Tennyson
must have had in view when he wrote his ‘ Lotus-
eaters.’ The description is so exact, that J need not
write anything in the way of description, if you will
only read 77.

My headaches are growing less intense, although
they still keep wonderfully persistent. I cannot fore-
see what is likely to happen in the end, as no one
seems to know exactly what is the matter with me.

The last mail brought me a letter from the Master
of my College at Cambridge, telling me that I had
been unanimously elected to fill a vacancy in the list

1 Miss Pollock’s marriage to Mr. Vernon Boys, F.R.S., is here re-
ferred to.

1893 FELLOWSHIP AT CAIUS COLLEGE 311

of Honorary Fellows. This seems to me very generous,
seeing how I have played the prodigal and squandered
my living on endowing the enemy.

Please give my very heartiest love and good wishes
to the bride. Take also my Christmas greetings for
all three of you, coupled with the congratulations that
are so meet, and believe me to remain,

Yours ever affectionately,
Gro. J. Romans.

To James Romanes, Esq.
Madeira: 1892

I suppose you will have seen in the newspapers, or
have been told by Char.,' that Caius College has made
me an Honorary Fellow.? This is a great pleasure to
me, because I have always retained my first love for
Cambridge, and yet of late years I have so severed
my connection with it. These coals of fire have
therefore a heat about them which is all the more
gratifying. .

To Professor Ewart.

This would be a wonderful place for natural history
if I were well enough to knock about.

I get fishermen, however, to bring any marine
animals which they know to be rare. There is one
fish which I never heard of before, and which seems
to me remarkable on account of its curious combi-
nations of character, for in all respects it seems to be
a large dog-fish, excepting its teeth, which are those
of a shark.

1 A pet name for his sister.
2 A window to his memory has been placed in Caius Collcge Chapel.

312 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES: — 1892

To Professor Poulton.
New Hotel, Madeira: December 2, 1892.

My dear Poulton,—I have now read the corre-
spondence in ‘Nature.’ It seems to me that is
quite absurdly ‘aggressive,’ even supposing that he
proves to be right. But I send this to ask you about
the grasshopper letter in last week’s ‘ Nature,’ just
received here. I have noticed the same thing in
grasshoppers, but do not remember to have seen any
account of the changes of colour, or mechanism
thereof, in them. Do you know if it has ever been
worked at? If not, I might do so here.

The same question applies to lizards. It seems to
me that those here vary their colours to suit those of
habitual stations. I remember HKimer read a paper
about the lizards in Capri, but forget details. He
often alludes to it in his book translatcd by Cunning-
ham. What are his main results ?

G. J. BR.

The Cambridge Fellowship was a great pleasure
to Mr. Romanes. In the last months of his life he
longed eagerly to visit his first University and his
own college, and planned visits to Cambridge which,
alas, were never paid.

Canon Isaac Taylor was in the same hotel at
Madeira, and this considerably relieved the weariness of
exile. Mr. Romaneswasstillfull of funand merriment;
the headaches diminished ; he played chess intermin-
ably, and even took part in a little play given one
afternoon by a few people who formed themselves

1893 MADEIRA 313

into an ‘ Oxford Brotherhood,’ most of the members
having some connection with the University of
Oxford.

The members of the brotherhood were supposed
to deliver lectures in turn, but the burden chiefly
fell on Mr. Romanes. The lecturing, which in this
particular case was simply talking, was never any
trouble to him, and he used to deliver little im-
promptu discourses which apparently pleased his
friendly audience.

- Mr. Romanes’ letters showed nearly always great
brightness and increased feelings of health, although
now and then he had ‘bad days.’

To James Romanes, Esq.

Madeira: January 1, 1893.

This is the first letter which I write in 1893, and
am writing it early in the morning before breakfast.
New Year’s Day is as glorious in sunshine and azure
as all—or nearly all—the others have been since we
came. I wish you many returns of them and happy,
whether in cloud or sunshine.

January 31, 1893,

Your letter on the 15th has been a great treat to
me; it rings true and deep, and the next best thing
to having dear ones near is to receive expressions of
their dearness.

Besides, I am all alone here, for but a few days,
it is true, still the place seems dreary under present
circumstances, therefore all you say is opportunely
said.

314 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

For my own part I have always felt that the two
most precious things in life are faith and love, and
more and more the older that I grow. Ambition
and achievement are a long way behind in my ex-
perience, in fact out of the running altogether. The
disappointments are many and the prizes few, and by
the time they are attained seem small.

The whole thing is vanity and vexation of spirit
without faith and love. )

Perhaps it is by way of compensation for having
lost the former that the latter has been dealt to me
in such full measure. I never knew anyone so well
off in this respect... .

Although I have been very much in the world I
have not a single enemy, unless it be the , who
have éntirely dropped out of my life.

On the other hand, I do not know anyone who
has so many friends, not merely acquaintances, but
men and women who are devoted with an ardent
affection... .

Now, all this might sound very conceited to any-
one who would not understand me as I know you
will do. But I have been thinking the matter over
in my solitude, and candidly I am wholly unable to
account for it. Still, to be further candid, even love
is not capable of becoming to me any compensation
for the loss of faith... .

But it is time for me to go to bed and shut up
this egotistic screed to post by to-morrow’s mail.

I received a telegram yesterday announcing the
arrival in England of my brace of Hthels, and to-

1893 “MADEIRA 315

morrow I expect the arrival here of Charlotte and
Mytsie... pe

I forgot about the mesmerism article. You will
have seen that the writer rather caved in at the end,
so that one cannot well understand how much he him-
self supposes was genuine and how much imposture.

But quite apart from (this), there is no question
in my mind that the facts, even as far as hitherto
established, are very perplexing. But on this account
there is all the more need for caution. I myself
went over the Paris Salpétriére two years ago, and
saw the doctors’ experiments on a number of girls,
who were trotted out for my benefit.

But there was such a lot of hocus pocus with
magnets that I was much disappointed. Even if
none of the girls were humbugging, I saw nothing
that could not be explained by suggestion.

For the doctors made suggestions while perform-
ing the very experiments which were demeucd to
exclude suggestion.

To Mrs. Vernon Boys.
New Hotel, Madeira: February 1, 1893.
My dear Marion,—If I have your husband’s
permission still to call you so—your kind letter has
been a great solace to me, after my ineffectual efforts
to supply a sonnet for the great occasion. For it
shows me that your Laureate is forgiven, and my
friend, what that friend has always been. Besides, I
am now lonely—as my brace of Ethels has flown

1 A favourite cousin, who died a few months after Mr. Romanes.

316 GEORGE. JOHN ROMANES 1893

away—and therefore your affectionate words are all
the more welcome.

This, however, is the last day of my solitude, as
Charlotte and Mytsie ought to arrive in a few hours.

And now, having given you all my little news,
let me pile up my congratulations as high as words
can pile them. I heard all about the wedding from
many different sources, and there was but one opinion
as to the bride. I will not say what it was, but oh,
had I been there to see. It is so so good of you to
miss us in the middle of it all. But it may have
been telepathy, because I was hard at work on my
abortive sonnet all that day.

It is like northern breezes to read your account
of all the happy doings you have had on your wedding
trip, and it makes me happy to feel that you have
made so wise a choice in the greatest event of your
life. Long may you live together in the cultivation
‘of domestic bliss, although of course only in the
moments snatched from the cultivation of science !

February 2.

Charlotte and Mytsie arrived last night at ten
o’clock—twelve hours late. They had the roughest
voyage which the boat has ever experienced. Poor
Char.’ is literally more dead than alive. But the
weather here is beautiful, and I hope she may soon
get to rights again.

With affectionate regards to my mentor, and to
yours, I remain, ever the same,

PHILOSOPHER.
1 See p. 311, above. 1:

1893 MADEIRA 317

To James Romanes, Esq.
Madeira: March 8.

Charlotte enjoys this place amazingly, she is
always saying, ‘Just a very Paradise for James.’ I
quite agree with her. You liked Nice very much,
but Nice is far from being up to this either in regard
to sun, flowers, rocks, or mountains. It has certainly
done me a lot of good. My headaches are virtually
gone, and I can work a little again, which makes all
the difference between Heaven and its antipodes.

March 13.

I am glad you are pleased about the lectureship
foundation. The principal feature of the scheme is
the perpetual publication of the lectures in volumes
of ten each through all time, or at least as long as
Oxford lasts.

I am better even since I last wrote toyou. Even
my powers of work have, to a considerable extent,
returned. So Iam answering H. Spencer’s articles
on ‘ Weismannism.’

With warmest love, yours ever the same,

GroRGE.
To Mrs. G. J. Romanes. |

, Madeira.
I got your dear note soon after we went down
to the pier to see you start. Through the club
telescope I thought I saw you and Fritz. When you
got far out I came home. The Taylors joined our
table, which is very agreeable. The Canon told me

318. GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893.

a good joke which came off to-day. Sir ‘Gorgias’
told the Canon he had bought a second-hand book
which he thought Dr. Taylor might find interesting.
The Canon asked what the book was, and the
Knight replied it was by a man called Locke, and
was all about the Human Understanding.
February 2.

Char., Mytsie, and maid arrived ; they had a per-
fectly frightful passage. All passengers shut down
for two days, crockery broken, &c.

S presented a large wedding cake for the
Sunday tea of the Inner Brotherhood.

February 5.

Poor little Mytsie! It is a cruel pity to see what
a wreck she is.... A sense of duty is her ruling
passion.

This morning, for instance, she made me promise
not to work for more than two hours while she went
down to the garden. When the time was up I went
to join her, but half way down I met her slowly
creeping up lest I should have failed to notice the
time. Now that means more to her than miles of
walking to you or me. I wonder how the Dean is
getting on,’

February 11.

This is the joyful day. Your telegram was
handed to me at lunch, so all the Inner Brotherhood
had the benefit. The Canon said you ought to have
used the comparative degree, so as to leave me an
opportunity of returning the superlative.

1 Dr. Paget had been very ill. ? His wedding-day.

1893 MADEIRA. 319:

What a journey you had, poor dears! It does
not seem so certain after all that we should be safe
for comfort on a long voyage. Mytsie and Char. had
a worse passage than you, the wind was dead against
them all the way.

It is indeed shocking about the Dean. I heard
it before you did. I will write to him by this mail.

So glad you had such a good concert. If you only
knew how I was longing to enjoy it with you.... ©

An adagio movement has now followed the
allegro, and I am looking forward to a presto home
as a finale.

My news is not much. My cold was very bad
from Saturday to Monday, but I slept most of the
time straight on. If it were not for my eyes I should
be almost as well as ever I was.

I read Walter Hobhouse’s child story, and Mrs.
capped it with another. A little girl she knew
asked whether, when she got to heaven, she might
‘have a little devil up to play with.’ Mytsie’s
nephew, when three years old, had a much prettier
idea. On M. telling him that something had hap-
pened before he was born, he said, ‘Then that was
when I was still in heaven.’ ‘ Yes,’ answered M.,
‘but what was heaven like?’ ‘Oh, there I. played
with angels, and there was nothing but Christmas
trees.’

Are not the debates first-rate? It seems to me
I never read so many good speeches as those of
Balfour, Bryce, and Chamberlain. But the measure
itself is absurd.

We had a party on board the ‘ Royal Sovereign '

320 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

on Tuesday last. It was a dance on deck, and was
very pretty. Enormous profusion of flags and flowers
all over the ship. I asked one of the midshipmen
to dine with us at the ‘round table;’ he had shown
us over one of the ships on a previous day, as I told
you, and proved an awfully nice little fellow, curi-
ously like P. N. W.’ Suffers always horribly from
sea-sickness, and gave a dismal account of his life at
sea. . He was only about eighteen, with that perfect
bearing which I think Lankester is right in pre-
ferring to University manners. Even the bluejackets.
have it.

By the way, a propos of the B.A. I suppose you
have heard that Lord Salisbury is to be President
next year at Oxford. You had better be thinking
whom to invite as guests, leaving a margin in case
should redeem his promise. I shall meet
him between this and then somewhere and ascer-
tain.

I gave my lecture on Sea Urchins to the Inner
Brotherhood. Mr. Keen? wants me to give a public
lecture on hydrophobia. He will take the chair. I
am certainly on the up grade. Mytsie reads the
German pamphlet, and I work two and a half hours,
so my book is getting on.

March 12.

There has been a most extraordinary change in
the weather. Up to yesterday we had three of the
calmest days that have been since I came. The sea
was without a ripple, and Char. and I were last night

1 Mr. Waggett. 2 The English Consul.

1893 MADEIRA 321

hoping it would be lke that when we start, as it
would be sure to last till we got home. When, lo
and behold, this morning there is by far the highest
wind and sea I have yet seen. The spray is flying
right over the rocks, once up to where Fritz got over
the wall by the bathing-place. Rain in sheets. The
‘Drummond Castle’ will have an awful time of it.
No hope of a letter to-day.

Here’s a good story. A rector was asked to take
the chair at a prayer meeting. One of his parish-
ioners prayed as follows: ‘O Lord, we had a sermon
from our vicar yesterday, and we thank Thee for it
because it was an able discourse, but we pray Thee
to give him some idea of what the Gospel is!’

March 16.
Letters, such jolly good gossip that I feel disposed
to follow the example of the ‘distinguished man’
who lived apart from his wife because he so much
enjoyed her letters. And yet I am like a hound
straining at his leash to get away.
I cannot read what it is that York Powell is going
to have designed for us, it looks like ‘ booky flash.” !
.... By the time you get this, it will only be
another fortnight before you get me, and I believe

you will get me in a wonderfully restored state of
health.

March 17.

The weather is still the same. Tremendous wind
and perpetual squalls of rain, ‘the sea and the waves

1 Tt was ‘ book-plate.’

322 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

roaring,’ also ‘men’s hearts failing them for fear,’ for
the occupants of the rooms we used to have never
went to bed last night.

This morning an English man-of-war ran in for
refuge, but had 40 run out again before the return
salutes had been fired, as her anchors could not hold,
and an odd accident happened. At the 18-minute
eun from the fort, one of the gunners somehow got
in front of the cannon and was blown to atoms. I
suppose they were all confused with the wind and the
spray.

The waterproof coat you sent me is in great
requisition. Moreover it is a source of great amuse-
ment to the Inner Brotherhood, as Miss Taylor has
discovered in it a close resemblance to a hassock—
no, | mean a cassock. She wants me to get a round
hat wherewith to ‘cap’ it when I return to Oxford.
All the same, it is the best thing in the way of a
waterproof that I have met as yet.

The Aryan lecture from Canon Taylor has come
off, and it was really splendid. Everybody came,
and the Canon delivered a mass of most interesting
matter. He began by saying that my lectures had
been illustrated by specimens, but that the only
specimens he would show were the members of his
audience themselves, who were all Aryans. The
title of the lecture was ‘The Origin of the Aryans,’
and one of the audience had understood this to be
‘Origin of the Arians,’ and had come expecting a
theological discussion on the rise of the Arian heresy.
She was beyond measure astonished and indignant
at his assumption that we were all heretics !

1893 ARTICLES ON WEISMANNISM ee

March 19,

I have got Weismann’s new book, ‘ The Germ-
Plasm.’ It is a much more finished performance
than the ‘Essays.’ In fact, he has evidently been
consulting botanists, reading up English literature
on the subject, so he has anticipated nearly all the
points of my long criticisms. This is a nuisance.

Per contra, since coming here I have heard of no
less than three additional cases of cats which have
lost their tails afterwards having tailless kittens. I
wish to goodness I had been more energetic in get-
ting on with my experiments about this, so I have
written to John to get me twelve kittens to meet me
on my return. It would be a grand thing to knock
down W.’s whole edifice with a cat’s tail.

The monotony of hfe here is becoming intolerable.
There is nothing to write about.

You will have seen that Taine is dead. I was
just about to write to him, to ask it he would be the
Romanes lecturer.

March 21.

Here is an odd thing. I find that Weismann in
his new book has discussed all the points raised by
Spencer. So Spencer and I have been hammering
away at things which W. has already written upon.
Luckily, he says about what I anticipated he would
say (see my article), but how absurd a fiasco! I
have written a postscript to go by the mail, hoping
it may arrive in time to be bound up as a separate
slip before the issue of April number, explaining that

¥ 2

324 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

absence from England prevented me from getting
W.’s new book until now. But S. ought to have
known. :

March 22.

IT have written to Weismann telling him that
Bunting will send him a copy of the ‘ Cont. Review.’ *

I have asked W. if he will give the Romanes
Lecture some year. Love to you and the chicks.
You will have to tell me which is which of the boys.

Unless he has already procured ordinary kittens,
tell John? to get them either Angora or Persian.
They will cost more, but will be much better.

I had a long innings with the doctor to-day; he
says I am perfectly sound; believes my headaches
are all gastric.

Your last letter just received is such a relief to
me. I was just Hrnest’s age when I nearly died of
whooping cough.

This is the last letter of mine that you will be
able to answer I hope for years to come. Does this
not look like getting home? I am nowa coming
event. JI have been busy with my answer to H.
Spencer. H. 8S. is singularly behindhand with his
information. In fact, it is melancholy to see how
he fails to appreciate the strength of Weismann’s
position. He does not even understand it, and the
weakness of his criticism is such that he makes
matters worse for his own position with regard to the
inheritance of acquired characters—z.e. the foundation
of his entire system of synthetic philosophy.

1 Contemporary, April 1892.
? His butler, an old and valued servant.

1893 AT THE ROYAL SOCIETY 320

The home coming was very bright, and again
Mr. Romanes set to work with renewed and, alas, too
great vigour. Beyond absolutely refusing invitations
to dine out at Oxford, and living as quietly as possible
at home, there was no keeping him in order. The
following letters show how irrepressible his spirits were
whenever a day’s health made him hopeful again.

To Mrs. G. J. Romanes.

Atheneum Club: May 10, 1893.

I was very sorry that I could not get home to-
day, and hope you will have received my telegram.
Everybody was at the Royal Society except Balfour,
and I became wearied with congratulations on my
improved appearance. I met Moulton,' who was
awiully nice, and wanted me to dine and sleep at
his house some day if I can, in order to talk over
‘ physiological selection.’

So I asked him to come and hear Huxley. He
said he would try. . . . Galton asked me to join in
an investigation of the French calculating boy at
his house to-day, so I did. Oliver Lodge was there.
The boy was most marvellous.

I am going to the Globe to-night and am very
well. After the R.S. last night I went to a party at
Lady Tenterden’s. Very smart.

Yours ever lovingly,
GEORGE.
1 F. J. Moulton, Esq., M.P., F B.S.

326 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

To Professor Hucley.
St. Aldate’s, Oxford: April 19, 1893.

My dear Mr. Huxley,—Very many thanks for
your kind inquiries about my health. I am certainly
much better, although still far from well. My eyes
continue in exactly the same state, so I am afraid
there is no hope of recovery in that direction. How-
ever, if they get no worse I shall still be able....
to ‘toddle along.’

I am very sorry to hear that you have caught
influenza microbes from the doctors, but trust from
what you say that they will have left you before the
date of your lecture. But of course we will remember
not to lionise you unduly while you are our guest.

As regards the audience, you may expect the
Sheldonian Theatre to be as full as it can be, and
that means close upon two thousand.

You ask whether I can tell you ‘what such audi-
ences are used to,’ in the way of time. But as there
has only been one such before, there 1s nothing much
to go by in the way of precedent. On that occasion,
however, the lecture extended to an hour and a half,
and there were no signs of impatience—in fact, quite
the contrary. I feel quite sure that an hour and a
half will not be too long.

I do not quite understand whether the discourse
has already been set up in type. The scheme for
publishing these lectures is that prior to delivery a
thousand copies are printed by the Clarendon Press
for sale at 1s. per copy; half the profits of this sale
go to the lecturer, the other half being retained by the

1893 THE ROMANES LECTURE 397

Clarendon Press to defray expenses of republication
in the ten yearly volumes. I understood from the
V. C. that he would explain this to you by sending
you a printed copy of the statute. But if he has not
done so, and if you have made any other arrange-
ments, I should like to know what they are. In any
case please let me know soon how we stand as to this,
s I shall not be able to see the V. C. till next week.
Looking forward with much pleasure to meeting
you and yours, |
I remain, yours very 7 ancerely,
G. J. Romanes.

St. Aldate’s, Oxford: April 27, 1893.

My dear Mr. Huxley,—It is very kind of you to
send me the enclosed, which, it is needless to say, I
have read with no ordinary interest.

In my censorial capacity, with which you have
been so considerate as to mvest me, I am certainly
unable to find the smallest ground for any conceiv-
able objection ; and my wife, who has a fine nose for
heresy, is likewise unable to perceive any obnoxious
flavour. Therefore please forgive my timidity, and
remember that the ‘scare’ was aroused only by the
ominous sound of your remark about expecting the
audience to apply your remarks to the case of modern
religions.

In so much that is good, it seems to me a pity
that Note 19 was not embodied in the text of page
33; for in its absence the audience will suppose that
you regard the moral sense as opposed to that which

328 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

leads to success in the struggle for existence—not
perceiving that the appearance of opposition is due
to natural selection having been transferred from the
individual to the community.

With the permitted exception of my wife, no one
else has seen the proof.

Yours very sincerely,
G. J. Romans.

Journal: May.—Sir A. Clark is fairly encouraging.
Dinner at Mrs. Pollock’s; met the R. Palgraves and
W. Flowers, who have blossomed out into K.C.B.’s
since we left.

20th.—The Huxleys’ visit has been most delight-
ful. He was most genial and ‘mellow,’ and his lecture
has, of course, aroused great interest. Various people
to meet them. Mr. Gore and Professor Froude one
day to lunch. Somewhat heterogeneous elements.
When the former had gone, Mr. Huxley suddenly
awakened to the fact that it was the Principal of the
Pusey House whom he had met.

Count and Countess Balzani have been here, and
we had an ‘ historical’ dinner for them.

This was the last bit of the old pleasant life which
Mr. Romanes had so much enjoyed. He was busy
arranging experiments on heliotropism and on the
power of germination in dry seeds after precautions
had been taken to prevent any ordinary processes
of respiration, which were worked up into a Royal
Society paper. He writes:

1893 GERMINATION IN DRY SEEDS 329

To F. Darwin, Esq.

St. Aldate’s, Oxford: June 14.

My dear Darwin,—There has been no hurry
about answering my letter because I cannot publish
until I shall have ascertained what has already been
done upon the subject, and for this purpose I have
had to write to Germany. I am greatly obliged to
you for the substantial assistance which your letter
has given me.

My modus operandi was to give nine different
kinds of seeds to Crookes,’ to place them in one of his
to0s000 atmosphere vacuums for three months last
year (viz. February, March, and April). He then
left one set undisturbed, whilst the other eight sets
were transferred to their respective gases (nine in
number), where they remained sealed up for a year.
On being planted last month they have all germinated
even better than those from the control packets of
seeds, which have been in air all the time.

I should have thought beforehand that at any rate
the seeds which have been in so high a vacuum for
fifteen months would have had any residual air ex-
tracted. But I will now try for next year, peeling
peas, beans, &c., as you suggest. Do you think it
would be well also to soak the seeds for a few hours
before sealing in Crookes’ tubes ?

Do not trouble to answer by letter, as I am going
to Cambridge on the 21st inst. for the day, and will
then see you if I can find you at home.

1 Professor W. Crookes, F.R.S.

330 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

I am not exactly ‘ at work,’ as I am not as yet
well enough to attempt it at anything like ordinary
pressure, but I am certainly better, and much obliged
to you for your kind inquiries upon the subject.

With our united kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and
yourself,

I remain, yours sincerely,
G. J. Romans.

P.S. My illness has left me half blind, so I write
as much as possible by dictation, (What a bull !)

94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford: June 15.

My dear Dyer,—Many thanks for your letter with
enclosures. The letter shows that ——’s opinion has
not altered since I last saw him. As I think I told
you at the Athenzum, he undertook some two or three
years ago on my behalf to raise discussions in the
papers, to which he alludes. Since that time he has
sent me, I believe, copies of all the numberless letters
which have been published in consequence. The
result of our inquiry has been to confirm the opinion
which he gave me at the first, and also to form my
own in the same direction. (See my article in
answer to Herbert Spencer in the ‘Contemporary
Review’ for April.’)

As regards the isolation of species I do not
understand why you should suppose that the facts of
hybridisation to which you allude should in any way
modify my ‘belief.’ As fully set forth in ‘ Physio-

1 Mr. Herbert Spencer on ‘ Natural Selection,’ Contemporary Review,
April 1893.

1893 EVIDENCE FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 331

logical Selection,’ what I maintain is that the origin
of species is in all cases due to isolation of some kind,
but that only in the case of differential fertility can
physo. sel. have been the kind of isolation at work.
Therefore, it would be fatal to my views if all species
were cross-sterile, because this would prove vastly
too much. What the theory of phy. sel. requires
is exactly what occurs, viz. cross-sterility between
allied species in nearly all cases where species have
been differentiated on common areas or identical
stations, and more or less complete cross-fertility
where they have been differentiated on different (dis-
continuous) areas, or else prevented from intercrossing
by yet some other means of isolation.

I have collected a quantity of evidence in favour
of both these otherwise inexplicable correlations.
But I should lke to know the species of wild fowl
which you have found to be hybridisable or cross-
fertile, so that I may ascertain whether their natural
breeding areas are, or are not, identical. Of course I
should expect them not to be.

I have been told to save my eyes as much as
possible, and therefore conduct most of my corre-
spondence by dictation. But not being used to this
process, I find it even more difficult than before to
express my meaning with clearness, so I will tackle
with my own hand what you.say about Aquilegias.

I have looked up the group, and find that, with
the exception of vulgaris (common columbine), all
the Huropean species seem to occupy restricted areas,
or else well-isolated stations. Also, that the same
seems to apply as a very general rule to other species

332 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

all over the world, for, wherever mountains are con-
cerned, stations are apt to be isolated by difference
of altitude, &c.

Now if such be the case with the group in ques-
tion, the fact of its constituent species being freely
hybridisable when artificially brought together is
exactly what my theory requires. For the specific
differentiation has presumably been effected by
geographical (or topographical) isolation, without
physiological having had anything to do with it.
In fact, as stated over and over again in my original
paper, thes correlation between geographical isolation
and cross-fertility 1s one of my lines of verification,
the other line being the correlation between identical
stations and cross-sterility.

Now, as above stated, I have found both these
correlations to obtain in a surprisingly general
manner.

I wish that, instead of perpetually misunderstand-
ing the theory, you English botanists would help me
by pointing out exceptions to these two rules, so that
I might specially investigate them. It seems to me
that the group you name goes to corroborate the
first of them, while all Jordan’s work, for instance,
uniformly bears out the second. And whatever may
be thought about him in other respects, I am not
aware that anyone has ever refuted his observations
and experiments so far as I am concerned with them.

Yours ever sincerely,
G. J. Romanss,

1893 EVIDENCE FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 333

94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford: June 22.

Dear Dyer,—I received a letter from by the
same post that brought yours of the 19th inst. From
it I gather that his opinion on the subject of telegony
has not changed in any material respect since our
inquiry began. His opinion has always been such as
you now quote (‘atavism’ on the one hand, with a
small minority of ‘ dormant fertilisation ’ cases on the
other). His has likewise always been my own view
(with the addition of coincidence), and has been cor-
roborated by the result of these inquiries. So I think
we are all three pretty well in agreement, because both
and myself share in your doubts as to the
minority of the cases being really due to dormant
fertilisation—~.e. not to be ascribed to coincidence or
mal-observation. Also,as I said before, I quite agree
with you that ‘neither view is any help to Herbert
Spencer.’ In fact, I have somewhat elaborately
sought to prove this in my ‘Contemporary Review’
article for April, and have been in private correspon-
dence with him ever since, but without getting any
‘ forerder.’

But in this connection I should like to know
whether you have any opinion upon the apparently
analogous class of phenomena in plants which Darwin
gives in the eleventh chapter of his ‘ Variation,’ &c.
Here, it seems to me, the evidence is much more
cogent and of far more importance to the issue,
Weismann v. Lamarck. Focke and Dr. Vris, however,
seem to doubt the facts or their interpretation,
although, as it seems to me, without presenting any

334 ~ GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

adequate reasons for doing so. You need not bother
with Dr. Vris, as he merely follows Focke, but I wish
you would read Focke (‘Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge,’
p. 510, e¢ sq.), and compare what he says with the
evidence which Darwin presents.

As I do not know in what respects you have
found one part of my previous letter not to ‘ tally’
with another, I cannot fully explain it; but I fancy
that you will find they do, if, in reading the letter,
you carry in your mind the simple proposition that,
from the nature of the case, there can be no physio-
logical selection except where differentiating varieties
(‘incipient species’) occur upon common areas and
identical stations. JI do not see any difficulty
about willows, roses, brambles, &¢., since Naudin’s
researches on Datwra have shown how much vari-
ability, due to the hybridisation of any two species,
may give rise to the appearance of there being many
species. This, you will remember, is the view that
Naudin himself takes with regard to willows &¢.—
although, of course, without any reference to phy. sel.
Tf you will refer to p. 405 of the paper on phy. sel. you
will find that from the first I have been aware of the
difficulty about discontinuous areas to which you
allude. But I think the converse line of evidence
(viz. that of cross-sterility between incipient species
on identical stations) will alone prove sufficient to
verify the theory. At the same time I look for more
corroboration from the cross-fertility of well-dif-
ferentiated species upon discontinuous areas where
these are, as you say, oceanic islands, or, still better,
mountainous districts where the allied species are

1893 EVIDENCE FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION -335

severally peculiar to mountain tops and isolated
valleys. For in these cases there must be much
doubt, as a general rule, touching the species having
been differentiated by topographical isolation upon
the particular areas where they are now found.
Moreover, and this I think quite as important,
the consideration which Darwin adduces in another
connection is obviated, viz. ‘that if a species was
rendered sterile with some one compatriot, sterility
with other species would follow as a necessary con-
tingency.’
Yours very sincerely,
G. J. Romanss. |

P.S.—From your first letter it would almost seem
that you had supposed me to doubt the fact (or, at
any rate, the frequency) of cross-fertility in general.
And this after I had written the article on ‘ Hybridi-
sation ’ in the ‘ Ency. Brit.’ !

In June Mr. Romanes took a small house for the
summer months outside Oxford at Boar’s Hill, 2
district well known to Oxford people, and it was hoped
country air and quiet might do him much good.

He was rather headachy, and liked to lie on the
grass in the garden and have novels read to him, but
he was able to go up to London one day, and even
planned to take a journey to Wiesbaden in order to
consult an eminent oculist.

But on July 11 he was stricken down by hemi-
plegia. And now began the last year of patient
endurance, for from that time the Shadow of Death
was ever on him, and he knew it; from that July
day he regarded himself as doomed. Sometimes the

336 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

thought of leaving those whom he loved with such
intense devotion, such wonderful tenderness, over-
whelmed him; sometimes the longing to finish his
work was too great to be borne, but generally he was
calm, and always, even when he was most sad, he
was gentle and patient, and willing to be amused.

On July 13 Dr. Paget gave him the Holy Com-
munion.

It was a lovely morning. Outside the sunshine
and the summer sights and sounds. Inside that
quiet room there was a sense of peace, even of joy.
Death seemed very near that day, and yet there was
no fear, no dread. A little while before the celebra-
tion he had listened to Dr. Bright’s hymn, ‘ And now,
O Father,’ and had said, ‘It is wonderful; it is a
poem, and yet it conveys the deepest teaching,’ or
words to that effect.

One who was much with him at that time read
aloud on the following Sunday the Psalms for the
sixteenth evening, and as they came to the eighty-
fourth he said, ‘I can hardly bear that psalm; I have
longed so much.’

He slowly recovered from this attack, and there
were hopes—not of perfect health, but of life, and
of power to work. Now, more resolutely than ever,
he set himself to face the ultimate problems of Life
and Being, to face the question of the possibility of a
return to Faith.

It is impossible here to tell of the inner workings
of that pure and unselfish soul, of those longings and
searchings after God, of the gradual growth in stead-
fast endurance, in faith.

Tio one or two these are known, and the example
of lofty patience and of single-heartedness is not one
they are likely to forget. Of this more later.

1893 RETURN TO OXFORD 337

It was almost pathetic to see how keen and
vigorous his intellect was. In fact, the great
difficulty was to keep the busy brain from thinking.
Novels helped to some degree, and occasional visits
from friends as he grew better. Dr. and Mrs.
Burdon Sanderson, the President of Trinity and
Mrs. Woods, the Dean, Mr. Gore, the President of
Magdalen and Mrs. Warren, and Mr. Waggett, all
helped, coming and paying brief visits, which did
him good, for if he was not listening to reading or
conversation, he would be planning experiments or
pondering problems of theology, and ask by-and-by
that his thoughts should be taken down from dictation,
or that paper and pencil should be given him, or,
worse than all, devising arrangements for finishing
‘Darwin, and after Darwin.’ He dictated some
‘Thoughts on Things’ in the very first days of his
illness, and sent for Professor Lloyd Morgan, who came
and received instructions about the unfinished books,
instructions which he has carried out with unflageine
diligence and never-failing kindness.

But still he grew better, and early in August he
went back to Oxford, and by the first of September
he was able to be present in the cathedral at the
baptism by Dr. Talbot of his youngest son.

The fact that the Vicar of Leeds! and Mrs.
Talbot were in Oxford during that August was a
great pleasure to him, and he much enjoyed occa-
sional talks with Dr. Talbot.

To Professor Hwart.

I do not know what account EH. gave you of my
illness, but it is much too serious an affair to admit

1 Now Bishop of Rochester.
Z

338 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

of our going to the British Association. Indeed, I
hardly anticipate being able to make any engage-
ments or do much work during the rest of my life,
which is not likely to be a long one. It is just
such an attack as I expected when walking with
you over Magdalen Bridge.!
Yours ever,
G. J. Romanzs.

By September he was able to listen to, and dis-
cuss, Dr. Sanderson’s Presidential Address, which was
delivered in Nottingham at the British Association
of 1893.

It was one of the great disappointments of that
illness that he could not go to Nottingham. To be
at the Association when his dear friend and master
was president was a great wish of his, and early in
the summer a kind invitation from Lady Laura
Ridding, to stay with the Bishop of Southwell and
herself for it, had been accepted.

Nottingham and a visit to Denton, to which
Mr. Romanes had been looking forward, had to be
given up.

These things were real trials. It was not the
giving up particular bits of pleasure, but the realisa-
tion that he was too much of an invalid to do any-
thing of the sort, which he found so hard to bear, and
which he did bear with ever-increasing patience.

His letters sometimes show how hard he felt his
trial.

1 About eighteen months before, when a very temporary attack of
aphasia had come on,

1898 KNOWLEDGE OF INCREASING ILLNESS 339

To James Romanes, Esq.
Oxford: September 4.

My dearest James,—I have had two reasons for
not writing to Dunskaith since my letter about the
birth of Edmund.

I agree with all you say about Fritz and her
numerous brothers, the last two of whom you have
never seen. But, although I have been so signally
blestin my family. . . lam not disposed to fallin with
your optimism in other respects. Rather am I dis-
posed to agree with the Scotch minister, that ‘Man
is a mi-ser-able worrm, craaling upon the airth;’
for, both as regards the misery and the craaling I
am now a type.

And this brings me to my two reasons for not
writing before. The first is, that I am almost unable
to write; and the second is, that I did not want to
let you and Charlotte know all the facts sooner than
I could help.

The long and the short of it is that f believe I
am dying. I have been gradually getting worse and
worse, ... nor shall I be sorry when it comes.
Such being the case, I should like to consult you
about setting my house j imal Onde tay aaa

The photos which the children brought with them
of Dunskaith make me realise what splendid work
the buildings are, and even although it is now im-
probable that I shall ever see them, I am glad to
think that they will be in the family.!

1 His brother was making additions to the house at Dunskaith.
%2

340 GEORGE JOHN- ROMANES 1893

I cannot write more now. In fact I have not
written so much since my attack. But I send you
the best love of a life-time’s growth and that of your
only brother,

GEORGE.

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, Esq.

94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford: September 15, 1893.

Dear Dyer,—Many thanks for your letter with
enclosures. As you say, there does not seem to be
anything remarkable about the hybrid; but I am
vlad to see that both its parent species are well
marked and presumably both of mountain origin.
The case thus well accords with my views, as ex-
plained in my previous letters. I met with many
such (v.e. hybrids between originally isolated species)
in Madeira and the Canaries.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Where can your powers of ‘ observation’ have been
when you can still remark that I ignore the facts of
hybridisation? I can only repeat that from the
first I have regarded them as evidence of the utmost
importance as establishing a highly general correla-
{ion between separate origin of allied species and
avsence of cross-sterility. In fact, for the last five
years I have had experiments going on in my Alpine
garden, which I helped in founding for the very pur-
pose of inquiring into this matter. And Focke, with
whom I have been in correspondence from the first,
and who does understand the theory, writes that in
his opinion it will ‘solve the whole mystery’ of
natural hybridisation in relation to artificial.

1893 LETTERS ON HIS ILLNESS 341

Since my last letter to you I have been at death’s
door. On July 11, I was struck down by paralysis
of the left side, and am now a wreck. Not the least
of my sorrow is that I fear I shall have to leave the
verification of phys. sel. to other hands in larger mea-
sure than [had hoped. I have little doubt that it will
eventually prevail; but more time will probably be
needed before it does.

Yours very sincerely,
G. J. Romans.

Oxford : September 18, 1893.

Dear Dyer,—I am not a little touched by the
kind sympathy expressed in your letter of the 16th.
When one is descending into the dark valley, scien-
tific squabbles seem to fade away in those elementary
principles of good will which bind mankind together.
And I am glad to think that in all the large circle of
my fricnds and correspondents there is no vestige of
ill will in any quarter, unless it be with and
, who both seem to me half-crazy in their
enmity, and therefore not of much count.

As for ‘fortitude,’ sooner or later the night must
come for all of us; and if my daylight is being sud-
denly eclipsed, there is only the more need to work
while it lasts. But, to tell the truth, I do not on this
account feel less keenly the pity of it. With five
boys—the eldest not yet in his teens and the youngest
still in his weeks; with piles of note-books which
nobody else can utilise, and heaps of experimental
researches in project which nobody else is likely to
undertake, I do bitterly feel that my lot is a hard one

342 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

Looking all the facts in the face, I do not expect
ever to see another birthday,’ and therefore, like Job,
am disposed to curse my first one. For I know that
all my best work was to have been published in the
next ten or fifteen years; and it is wretched to think
of how much labour in the past will thus be wasted.

However, I do not write to constitute you my
confessor, but to thank you for your letter, and
also to say that I am sending you a copy of my
‘Examination of Weismannism,’ just published by
Longmans.

With our united kind regards to Mrs. Dyer and
yourself, I remain, yours very sincerely,

Gro. J. Romanss.

To Professor Huxley.
94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford: September 26, 1893.

My dear Mr. Huxley,—Although grieved to hear
that Mrs. Huxley has been so poorly, we sincerely
hope that your project of ‘ gathering up the threads’
of the Weismann question betokens a marked im-
provement in your own health, since the kind letter
was written which she sent us on your going abroad
in July.

Iam sorry to say that your corresponding infer-
ence with regard to myself is very wide of the truth.
My ‘Examination of Weismannism’ was written
before my last attack—which, in fact, occurred on
the very day when the concluding proofs had been
returned to the Clarendon Press. And this attack has
been of far too serious a nature to admit of my doing

1 He did see one more.

1893 ‘ EXAMINATION OF WEISMANNISM ’ 343

any more work at present—or, I fear, in the future.
It was a stroke of paralysis of the ordinary hemiplegic
kind; and although I have now recovered to the
extent of being able to crawl about a little, I am but
a wreck of my former self. Moreover the doctors
prohibit work of every kind, so that my misery is
absolute, all my experiments have come to an un-
timely end, and it is improbable that any of my half-
written books can ever be published.

I am most of all disappointed about my theory of
‘Physiological Selection,’ for which I have accumu-
lated a large mass of evidence during the last seven
years, and which I had hoped would satisfy most
people as an explanation of the contrast between
natural species and artificial varieties in respect of
cross-sterility.

As regards Weismannism, you will see that I have
not dealt with the question of acquired characters in
my ‘Examination.’ For, as this question has been
vividly before me during half my life, I cannot allow
that it belongs to ‘Weismannism.’ In his writings
it is a sort of Rip van Winkel. But my own treat-
ment of this long-standing question is almost ready
for press, and I hope it may be published before your
gathering up process begins. My condition, however,
is now so precarious that I scarcely expect to live
long enough even for this.

With our united kind regards to Mrs. Huxley and
yourself,

I remain, yours very sincerely,
Gro. J. Romanss.

344 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 183

Weismann ought not to wonder at the ‘bitterness’
of Spencer’s attack, looking to the effects of denying
use-inheritance upon the whole system of Synthetic
Phil.

94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford: September 26, 1893.

My dear Dyer,—This is one of my bad days, and
I have just exhausted my little store of energy by
answering a kind letter from Huxley. So please
excuse brevity, as I cannot leave your highly appre-
ciated benevolence without an immediate response.

I am much concerned to hear what you say about
yourself, and it makes me doubly desirous of seeing
you. On Monday next I am to try to go to town for
the purpose of consulting doctors. But any day
before that we should be truly glad if you could come
as you so kindly propose. Possibly I might be able
to drive out to Kew on Tuesday or Wednesday of
next week, should you find it impracticable to run
down here before then. But I fluctuate so much
from day to day that I cannot make any engagements.

Most fully do I agree with all that you say re-
garding criticism. And, especially from yourself, I
have never met with any but the fairest. ven the
spice of it was never bitter, or such as could injure
the gustatory nerves of the most thin-skinned of
men. I have, indeed, often wondered how you and
- and can have so persistently misunder-
stood my ideas, seeing that neither on the Continent
nor in America has there been any difficulty in
making myself intelligible. But this, of course, is
quite another matter.

1893 LETTERS ON HIS ILLNESS . 345

As regards Weismannism, I do not include under
this term the question of the inheritance of acquired
characters. That has been a question for me since
the publication of Galton’s ‘theory of heredity’ in
1875. Indeed, even before that, everybody knew the
contrast between congenital and acquired characters
in respect of hereditability ; and you may remember,
the first time we met you gave me a lot of good
advice regarding my experiments on this subject.

Please remember both of us very kindly to your
wife when you write to her, and with our united best
wishes to yourself,

Believe me, ever yours sincerely,
G. J. Romans.

To Francis Darwin, Esq,
St. Aldate’s, Oxford: October 8, 1893.

My dear Darwin,—Your very kind letter has been
one ray of light to mein my gloom. Yet you must
not think it is the only one.

It is comparatively easy to set our teeth and face
the inevitable with ‘a grin;’ but the ‘highest
bravery ’ is to hide our anguish with a smile. I do
think I make a decently good Stoic, but confess that
in times like this Christians have the pull. Never-
theless,I have often thought of the words, ‘Iam not in
the least afraid to die,’’ and wondered whether, when
my time should come, I would be able to say them.
But now I know that I can, and this even in the
bitterness of feeling that one’s work is prematurely

1 See Life and Letters of C. Darwin, vol. iii. p. 358.

546 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

cut short. . . . ‘Somewhat too much of this,’ how-
ever. What I want to tell you is that I managed to
get to London on Friday for the purpose of consult-
ing my doctors as to my prospects. They take a
more hopeful view than I expected, 7.e. notwith-
standing that I have had three attacks in one year
(in both eyes and now in the brain), it 1s not zmevit-
able that I should have another for years to come,
provided that I become a strict teetotaller, vege-
tarian, hermit, and abstainer from work. In short,
‘that my rule of life,’ ‘the exemplar’ for my ‘ imita-
tion,’ is to be that of a tortoise. Hence it does not
appear that there is any immediate necessity for
saying farewell to my friends, and hence also I will
not bother you by falling in with your kind proposal
to come over from Cambridge to see me, much as I
should like to see you in any case. But if you would
care to pay a visit to Oxford any time between this
and to-morrow week (16th), when I shall start for the
vicinity of Nice, we should both be awfully glad to
put you up. I think Dyer will probably be with us
from Saturday to Monday (14 to 16).
With our united very kind regards to all,
Yours ever sincerely,
G. J. Romanss.

To Professor Hualey.
94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford; October 9, 1893.
My dear Mr. Huxley,_-We are so very sorry to
have missed seeing you. Indeed it seems a curious

irony of fate that, after having been caged in my
house for the last three months, I should have been

1893 LETTERS ON HIS ILLNESS 347

ordered to town by the doctors on the very day that
you were in Oxford. And they must have been
melancholy days for both Mrs. Huxley and yourself.

I saw Andrew Clark, Lauder Brunton, and Hugh-
lings Jackson. They all agreed that I still have a
decent chance of living for an indefinite number of
years, provided that in all things I lead the life of a
tortoise. To tell the truth, I should not deem the
game worth the candle were it not for my wife and
five sons. But in view of them I must obey orders.

As for ‘General Death,’ I think it must be easier
to withstand his boast of Veni, vide, vier, if in reply
one can-say, Vii. With such a record as yours, and
with all your family doing so well, the ‘order to
march’ need not be quite so bitter.

But I have derived one benefit from my full-dress
rehearsal of the final act (literally ‘full dress,’ by the
way, asit was after dinner that I was struck down . . .);
and this is the certain knowledge of being at any
time able to repeat the last words of Darwin: ‘I am
not in the least afraid to die.’ I remember many
years ago, in your house at St. John’s Wood, cordially
agreeing with the feelings you then expressed, viz.,
that the prospect of death filled you with a horror
unspeakable. ‘Whether or not nature abhors a va-
cuum,’ you added, ‘I know that the soul of man does.’
But illness seems to make a vast difference in this

respect.
Another benefit I have gained is an increase of
admranon for 2). 2 °3.. to a limitless extent. I will

1 Mr. and Mrs. Huxley had come to Oxford in order to attend the
funeral of the Master of Balliol.

348 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

not try to express it, lest you should think that my
judgment must have been impaired. But the upshot
is that, if I am to die soon, I shall be certain that
there is no one in the wide world who, for bravery,
devotion, and sound sense, is better capable of doing
all that can be done for the children.

With many and sincerest thanks to Mrs. Huxley
and yourself for your truly kind sympathy,

I remain, yours ever the same,
Grorce J. RoMANEs.

Then came the journey to Costebelle, which he
describes as follows:

To James Romanes, Esq.

Hotel l’Ermitage, Costebelle : November 4, 1893.

My dearest James,—I ought to have answered
long ago the kind letter which I received from you
just as I was driving to the Oxford station, and read
in the train. But I am still such a wretched invalid
that I shrink from the smallest exertion, whether of
body or mind. I caught a violent cold in crossing
the Channel, which kept me in bed for three days at
Amiens, and left me so weak that I had to further
break the journey at Paris, Lyons, and Marseilles—
finally arriving here with a still feverish temperature.
But this has now subsided.

We found not only Paris but quite as much Lyons
and Marseilles in a state of delirium over the Russian
fleet officers, with whom we were muddled up all the
way, greatly to our inconvenicnce. This was espe-

1893 COSTEBELLE 349

cially the case on leaving Lyons, where the railway
officials, after having put our luggage (containing our
circular notes) in the railway station, locked the
doors of the latter in our faces, when the police and
military officials hurried us down the hill again in the
town (in the rudest of ways) till the arrival of the
Russians nearly an hour after our train was timed to
depart. We had no doubt that our hand baggage had
all been carried off in our railway carriage without us
and without labels; but on at last getting into the
station found that our train had not started.

This is one of the most charming places I have
ever seen. The hotel is situated on the top of a hill
which slopes for a mile to the sea, and which is thickly
clothed with pine and olive woods in all directions.
The climate admits of our sitting out of doors without
overcoats or shawls till sunset, amid the most won-
derful profusion of aromas I have ever met with.

To the Dean of Christ Church.

Costebelle : November 28, 1893.

My dear Dean,—In the firmament of my friend-
ships there is no such star as yourself, and I find it
belongs to them all that the darker and the colder
the night becomes, the more brightly do they shine.

It is quite certain that ‘the South has not yet
rendered its full service,’ inasmuch as it has not
rendered me any service at all. If anything I am
worse than when I left Oxford. My muscular power,
indeed, has somewhat improved, but my nervous
exhaustion seems to be growing upon me, week by

350 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1892

week; so that I am now able to walk but very
little—to hope, not much, to think, not at all.

The truth is that my ailment, whatever it is, is
not to be reached by climatic induenceee it belongs
to those mysterious internal changes, which Darwin
ascribes to what he calls ‘the nature of the organism’
—‘ variations which to our ignorance appear to arise
spontaneously.’ Hence, I am out of harmony with
my environment, whatever the environment may be.
And, as this Spencerianism apples to my spiritual,
no less than to my bodily organisation, it would seem
that somehow or other I have been born into a wrong
world—hke those poor Porto Santo rabbits, which
I took home with me last year, and the history of
which I think I told you. However, I do not intend
to grumble at the visible universe until I shall have
had an opportunity of looking round the edge and
seeing what is behind.

Most of our time is spent in sheer idleness, or
rather, I should say, all of my time, and that propor-
tion of my wife’s which is spent in reading to me—
chiefly novels, poetry, and history. Yesterday, we
had Coppée’s play ‘Le Pater,’ which I know you
have read. For the length of it, I think itis as power-
ful a piece of dramatic writing as I have ever read.

Very few worries find their way to L’Ermitage.
The worst at present is the choice of the next
‘Romanes Lecturer.’ Owing to his accident, Helm-
holtz has blocked the way for the last two months,
but now promises a final reply in the course of a few
days. If he does come, I hope the University will
give him the D.C.L.

1893 COSTEBELLE 301

With our united kindest regards to Mrs. Paget,
whose messages to me are of more benefit than all
my doctor’s drugs (now that is a thing I ‘would
rather have expressed otherwise’ !) and yourself,

I remain, ever your affectionate friend,
G. J. Romanes.

For a while all went well, he liked the place, and
was able to work a little, and to have many books read
to him. He had taken out Dr. Martineau’s ‘ Study
of Religion,’ and other philosophical books, and he
also plunged into poetry, reading Wordsworth chiefly.

In December came what seemed to be a severe
gastric attack, with other alarming symptoms, and for
a few hours he seemed to be dying. But this passed
off, and although he was kept in bed for three weeks
he grew better, and in some ways there seemed
grounds for fresh hope.

For a few days in January he was under the care
of a cousin with two trained nurses, and his letters
home were surprisingly bright.

His wife’s maid, of whom he was very fond, was
terribly ill in January, and he writes:

Give Jane my love, and tell her I never forget
how good she was to me when I thought I was dying
in her arms at Boar’s Hill.

And again he wrote:

So glad to hear the operation has been successful.
Congratulate her from me. ‘Tell her I heartily wish
I were in her place as to this, but that neverthe-
less I have not ‘lost heart.’ I am now certainly

352 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893.

stronger, and if I could only submit my cranial cavity
to Tom’s' hands for removal of anything disagree-
able, I should be comparatively joyful.

The weather is glorious. Marian is at mass,
having read me one of Church’s sermons.

Please tell John to send me a couple of hundred
cigarettes (to prevent influenza! ).

When you come out you will not find me a kill-
joy ; the danger will rather be that of my scandalising
you all by riotous conduct on Sunday.

And certainly he was astonishingly bright when
his wife returned to him. It was on a Sunday after-
noon, and his first proposition was, ‘ The church bell is
tinkhing, let’s goto church.’ It was the twenty-eighth
of January, and the brightness and gladness of two of
the Evening Psalms were singularly appropriate, and
chimed in with feelings of a greater gladness dawning
on him, for he was leaving the strange land in which
for years he had not been able to sing ‘ The Lord’s
Song.’

And then began a time, often saddened by hours
of intense physical exhaustion and physical depres-
sion, but also of what can only be called growth in
holiness, in all that comes from nearness to God.

In the early autumn and winter there had been
sad moments when still the clouds of darkness, of
inability to grasp the Hand of God stretched out to
meet him, hung over him, but in these months there
had been the same growth.

One to whom he often spoke of the deepest things

1 Mr. E. B. Turner, F.R.C.S., one of Mr. Romanes’s dearest friends; as
was also his brother, Mr. G. R. Turner, F.R.C.S.

1393 PAPERS READ AT ROYAL SOCIETY 353

of life and of death will never forget his saying one
day just after the attack of illness in December: ‘I
have come to see that cleverness, success, attainment,
count for little; that goodness, or, as F. (naming a
dear friend) would say, “ character,” is the important
factor in life.’

For in early days Mr. Romanes had attached, so it
seemed to some of those who knew him best, an undue
importance to intellect, to cleverness, to intelligence,
and the same person to whom he said the few words
just quoted had often discussed with him the relative
value of goodness and of intellect.

By goodness is meant perfect and complete good-
ness, not such as that of which it has been said, ‘ It
is the business of the wise to rectify the mistakes of
the good.’

And as weeks passed on he would often plan a
country house and a life in which ‘good works’ were
to have a share.

He had always had a high ideal of what Love and
Faith should bring about, and in the last months of his
life he said to one whom he dearly loved, ‘ Darling,
if you believe what you say you believe, why should
you mind so much?’ With absolute resignation
he gave up all his ambitions, the old longing for
distinction, for greater fame, and yet he did not
lose for one moment the old interest in his scientific
work.

Two papers of his were read at the Royal Society
in October 1893. The first described experiments
undertaken by Mr. Romanes, the primary object of
which was to ascertain whether seeds which had been
kept out of contact with air for a lengthy period of time
still possessed the power of germination. The method
adopted was as follows: a certain number of seeds’

AA

354 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

were taken from each packet, mustard, cress, beans,
peas, &c., being the kinds employed, and, having been
weighed in a chemical balance, were sealed up in
tubes which had previously been exhausted of air,
and kept exposed to the vacuum for a period of
fifteen months. At the end of that time they were
removed from the tubes and sown in flower-pots
buried in moist soil. In some cases, after the seeds
had been in the vacuum tubes for three months,
they were transferred to other tubes charged with
pure gases, such as oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, car-
bon monoxide, or with aqueous or chloroform vapour,
and there kept for a further period of twelve months,
when they were sown as before.

In all cases the same number of seeds, of simi-
lar weights to those sealed up in the tubes, were
taken from each packet, kept in ordinary air for
the fifteen months, and then sown as control experi-
ments.

The results clearly showed that the germinating
power of the seeds was hardly, if at all, affected either
by being exposed to the vacuum or to the atmo-
spheres of the various gases and vapours. Further, in
no single case, in the hundreds of seeds so treated,
did the plants produced from them differ from the
standard types grown from the control seeds even in
the smallest degree.

The second paper described experiments in helio-
tropism, which had been undertaken by Mr. Romanes
with the object of ascertaining whether plants would
bend towards a light that is not continuous, but
intermittent.

Mustard seedlings, grown in the dark until they
were about one or two inches high, were used in all
the experiments ; they were either placed in a dark

1893 EXPERIMENTS ON HELIOTROPISM 300

room and exposed to flashes of light in the form of
electric sparks passed at regular intervals, or they
were put in a camera obscura, before which was
placed a Swan burner or arc lamp, the light from
which was rendered intermittent by the regular
opening and shutting of the photographic shutter.
The helotropic effect on the seedlings was found in
all cases to be very marked, the most vigorous ones
beginning to bend towards the light ten minutes after
the flashing began, bending through 45° in as many
minutes, and often through another 45° in as many
minutes more. By protecting half of the seedlings
from the interrupted light, by means of a cardboard
cap, then after the experiment uncovering them and
exposing that half for the same duration of time to
constant sunlight, Mr. Romanes found that the bend-
ing was less in this latter case ; that is, when the hght
was continuous. This result was confirmed by
placing two sets of plants under exactly similar con-
ditions before a Swan burner, the light from which
was constant for one set of seedlings, and rendered
intermittent for the other set by working the flash
shutter; in all cases the interrupted light caused the
plants to start bending more quickly, and through a
greater angle in a given time.

As regards the rate the flashes must succeed
one another to produce this heliotropic effect, Mr.
Romanes found that sparks passed at the rate of fifty
in an hour would cause considerable bending in half
an hour. It is of interest to note that in no single
case was there any green colouring matter produced,
the seedlings remaining colourless even when the
sparks were passed at the rate of 100 per second
continuously during forty-eight hours.

AA

356 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893.

Dr. Sanderson writes :

Friday, November 17.

My dear Romanes,—There was a rather interest-
ing discussion at the R. 8. on your paper about the
fresh experiments with seedlings. It was objected
that there was no evidence that the effects were
not due to one-sided drying of the stems of the
seedlings, and wanted to know whether suffi-
cient precautions were taken to guard against this.
I suppose that he meant heat effects. I said tha.,
under the conditions of this experiment, I could
not see how any ‘drying effect’ could possibly take
place.

My suggestion is that it would be worth while
to add a note, if you think of the impossibility of
any effect, excepting a light effect, being concerned.
I asked Foster just now, and he agreed with me
that it would be useful. I ought to add that it
was admitted that the observation was a new one
which promised to have very important bearings.

-I am writing this in great haste. I trust that
you are enjoying Costebelle.
Very truly yours,
T. Burpon SANDERSON.

At this time Mr. Romanes had a very interesting
correspondence with the Rev. G. Henslow, on the
subject of the direct action of the environment on
plant structures.

Ealing : October 19, 1893.

Dear Mr. Romanes,—If you are in town on
November 16, I should be very glad indeed if you

1893 ENVIRONMENT ON PLANT STRUCTURES 357

could come to the Linnean Society, and criticise my
paper which I am going to read: ‘On the origin of
plant structures by self-adaptation to the environ-
ment, exemplified by desert and xerophilous plants.’

In this and in subsequent letters Mr. Henslow
explained the subject-matter of his paper, and as
it formed the basis of the correspondence, a brief
analysis, furnished by Mr. Henslow in a later letter,
is here inserted.

The object of the paper is to show that the origin
of varieties and species—as far as the vegetative
organs are concerned—is solely due to climatic
causes. Tor the acquired (somatic) characters be-
come more or less hereditary if the same environ-
ment be maintained. But plants possess every de-
gree in their capacities either of reverting, changing,
ar of stability. <

The result is that I do not see any necessity for
natural selection at all in Nature, for the following
reasons. :

Variations are often indefinite in cultivation,
especially atter several years. Therefore to secure
a useful race artificial selection is necessary. On
the other hand, variation is definite in Nature, all
the seedlings varying in one and the same direc-
tion, z.e. towards equilibrium with the environmental
forces. Darwin knew of this fact, and you have
abundantly described it. But Darwin failed to see
that this definite variation in Nature is the rule,
and not the exception. Hence, as he admits, natural

358 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

selection is not wanted at all [z.e. 2f all variations
are definite in Nature].

Moreover, it is contended that climatic variations
are of no great, even of any useful, importance.
This may be so, for all I know, with animals; but it
is precisely the reverse with plants. I took my illus-
trations from desert plants, and showed that their
remarkable characteristics, which give the facies to
desert plants, are on the one hand the direct results
of the excessive drought, heat, light, &e. On the
other, they are just those features which enable the
plants to lve under their extremely inhospitable
environment. These characters are the minute
leaves, hardening of woody tissues, thick cuticle,
dense clothing of hair, wax, storage of water tissues,
&c.; so that the whole economy of the plant, in-
cluding its specific characters, is all chmatically
acquired. Although some may vary when the plants
are grown in ordinary gardens, such is no more than
one would expect on a priort grounds to be the case.

I would hmit natural selection, as far as plants
are concerned, to three things :

1. Mortality among seedlings with the survival of
the strongest.

I do not say ‘fittest,’ because it is ordinarily
understood to mean that the survivors have some
morphological features, by which they are benefited,
which lead on finally to specific characters.

I do not find this to be the case. Take an
instance of great contrast. Sow 100 seeds of the
water (submerged) Ranunculus fluitans in a garden.
They wil grow up as aérial plants, ze. they vary as

1893 ON SELF-ADAPTATION 359

they grow precisely in the same way. It is only
the weakest (from badly nourished seeds) which get
crowded out of existence. Here, then, is definite
variation without the aid of natural selection. Ha uno
disce omnes. 7

2. Delimitation of varieties and species by the
non-reproduction of intermediate forms.

It is generally said that if ‘good species’ are
isolated, the intermediate forms have been killed off
by natural selection. I maintain that they were
never reproduced. Thus if a has passed by succes-
sive generations, a’, a”, a’”, &., to a"; A and a” being
now only in existence, then a’, a”, &c., represented a
single generation apiece, each offspring being one
degree nearer to a", but could never be reproduced,
as the environment was continually acting upon the
whole series, urging each generation forwards till it
became stable in a*.

This is precisely what takes place in cultivating a
wild plant like the parsnip. Hach year the grower
selects a slightly improved form, till the required
type is fixed. The ‘Student’ is now a", a more or
less permanently fixed form, each of the intermediate
forms, lasting one year, having ceased to be reproduced.

3. The geographical distribution of varieties and
species by self-adaptation.

That is, if a number of plants migrate to a new
locality with new environmental conditions, half of
them may die; because they cannot adapt them-
selves ; the other half may live—change, and become
fixed forms, by their power of adaptation. The final
conclusion of the whole is that plants require nothing

360 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1893

more than climatic influences, to which their proto-
plasm may respond. The result is new varietal or
specific characters. Then, if the same environment
lasts, these become gradually more and more fixed
and hereditary, but one can never tell beforehand but
that the oldest plant in creation may not change
again as soon as it finds a new environment... .
This is what a long study of plants and experiments
has led me to; and it is not a conclusion arrived at
solely by ‘thinking out’ or evolving from my own
consciousness—like the German camel !
Hoping you are progressing,
Believe me, yours sincerely,
GxrorcE HENsLow.

Hotel l’Ermitage, Costebelle, Hyéres, France: October 29, 1893.

Dear Mr. Henslow,—You will correctly infer from
this address that I shall not be able to attend the
Linnean Society meeting on the 16th prox. For two
or three years past my health has been breaking up,
and several months ago I had a stroke of paralysis.
So I have had to knock off all work, and have just
arrived here to spend the winter—finding your letter,
forwarded from Oxford, awaiting me.

It has interested me very much, and some time
I should like to see the paper to which it refers,
whether in MS. or print. As far as I can gather,
you are spontaneously following in the footsteps of
Asa Gray, Naigeli, and some other botanists. But, it
seems to me, this self-adaptation doctrine is equi-
valent to an a priori abandoning of all hope to obtain
any naturalistic explanation of the phenomena in

1893 ON SELF-ADAPTATION 361

question. It simply refers the facts of adaptation
immediately to some theory of design, and so brings
us back again to Paley, Bell, and Chalmers. As
when a child asks why a flower closes at night,
and we answer him: Because God has made it
so, my dear. C’est magnifique, mais ce nest pas la
scvence. } :

But do not mistake me. My quarrel is with the
term self-adaptation, which seems to imply causes of
a non-naturalistic kind. Which, of course, is quite a
different thing from doubting whether the natural-
istig explanation given by Darwin is adequate to
meet all the facts. I am myself more and more
given to question ‘the all-sufficiency of natural
selection,’ and this, whether or not use-inheritance
is one of the supplemeitary factors. But that
there are some hitherto undiscovered factors of
this kind where many of the phenomena of adap-
tation are concerned, I am more and more disposed
to suspect. Nevertheless I believe, in the light of
analogy, that they will all prove to be natural
causes, and therefore not correctly definable as
due to ‘self-adaptation.’

My hemiplegia has given me a terrible shake, so
IT cannot write much. Indeed, this is the longest of
the few letters which I have written since my attack.
So please excuse seeming bluntness, and believe me
to remain,

Ever yours, very truly and most interestedly,

Gro. J. Romans.

P.S.—Of course you would not in any case expect

362 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES ~ 1893

to find so much variability of the conspicuously in-
definite kind in nature as in cultivation. For, by
hypothesis, natural selection is present in the one
case (to destroy useless variations) while absent in
the other. But I allow this does not apply to the
examples you give me. Only remember the point in
publishing your paper.

Hotel Costebelle, Hyéres: February 10, 1894.

Dear Mr. Henslow,—I am much indebted to you
for all your most interesting letters, and also for
prospect of receiving your books. Although for-
bidden to write letters myself, or to think about
anything as yet, I must send a few lines, pending
arrival of the books and papers, giving my general
impression of your views as set out in your corre-
spondence.

Briefly, it seems to me that your argument is per-
fectly clear up to a certain point, but then suddenly
becomes a petitio principu. In other words, so far as
your view is critical of natural selection considered
as a hypothetical cause of adaptive evolution, I can
well believe you have adduced a formidable array of
facts. But I fail to follow, when you pass on to the
constructive part of your case—or your suggested
substitute for natural selection in self-adaptation.
For self-adaptation, I understand, consists in results
of wmmediate response to stimuli supplied by environ-
ment. But, if so, surely the statement that all the
adaptive machinery of plant-organisation 1s due to
self-adaptation is a mere begging of the question
against natural selection unless it can be shown how

1394 NATURAL SELECTION v. SELF-ADAPTATION 363

self-adaptation works in each case. Now I do not find
any suggestion as to this. And yet this is obviously
the essential point; since, wnless it can be shown how
self-adaptation works—tz.e. that it is a vera causa,
and not a mere word serving to re-state the facts of
adaptive evolution—we have got no further in the
way of explanation than the physician who said,
that the reason why morphia produces sleep is be-
cause it possesses a soporific quality.

Observe, I purposely abstain from considering
your criticism of natural selection, which, although
perfectly lucid and possibly justifiable, yet certainly
does admit of the answer that incipient variations of
a fortuitous kind under nature may often be incon-
spicuous (while Wallace shows that in animals they
are, as a matter of fact, usually considerable). But
we need not go into this. The interesting point to
all of us must be the constructive part of your work ;
and I have tried to explain my difficulty with regard
to it. Why should protoplasm be able to adapt itself
into the millions of diverse mechanisms of nature by
converse with environment? The theory of natural
selection gives a logically possible, even if it be a
biologically inadequate, answer. But I cannot see
that the theory of self-adaptation does, wnless t¢ can
be shown that there 1s some sufficient reason why, say,
a desert-environment should produce self-adaptation
in the direction of hairs, a marine one in that of
fleshiness, &c. &c.

I have been very frank, because I know you, and
therefore that this is what you would prefer. But I
am too ill to make myself clear in a letter. I wish

364 GLORGE JOHN ROMANES 1804

you could stop here for a day on your way home, by
which time I shall probably have read your books,
and we might discuss the whole business before I
publish mine on the Post-Darwinian Theories.
With very many thanks,
I remain yours very truly,
G. J. Romanzs.

Hotel Costebelle, Hyéres: February 24, 1894.

Dear Mr. Henslow,—Nothing can be more clear
than are all your letters, and the last one, I take it,
sets at rest the only question which I had to ask. For
it expressly answers that, in your own view, the hypo-
thesis of ‘ self-adaptation’ is a statement rather than
an explanation of the facts. Nevertheless, it is also to
some certain extent advanced as an explanation on
Lamarckian lines, for in your books (for which I
much thank you) you attribute adaptive mechanism
in flowers to thrusts, strains, &c. caused by insects.
But here, if I may say so, it does not seem to me
that you sufficiently deal with an obvious criticism,
viz. How is it so much as conceivable that proto-
plasm should always respond to insect irritation
adaptively, when we look to the endless variety and
often great elaboration of the mechanism? Similarly
as regards the inorganic environment, Lamarck’s
hypothesis of wse-inheritance (v.e. mere increase and
decrease of parts as due to inherited efforts of greater
or less development by altered flow of nutrition) was
at least theoretically valid. But how can you extend
this to structures which, though wseful, are never
active, so as to modify flow of nutrition, e.g. hard:

1894 ON SELF-ADAPTATION 365

shells or nuts, soft pulp of fruits, &c.? Here it is
that natural selection theory has the pull. And so
of adaptive colowrs, odours, and secretions? I con-
fess that, even accepting inheritance of acquired
characters, I could conceive of ‘self-adaptation ’
alone producing all such innumerable and diversified
adjustments only by seeing with Newman (in his
‘ Apologia’) an angel in every flower.

Besides, I do not see why you are shut up to
this, even on your own principles. For surely, be
there as much self-adaptation in Nature as ever you
please, it would still be those individuals (or encrprent
types) which best respond to stimulation (7.e. most
adaptively do so) that, other things equal, would
survive in the struggle for existence, and so be
naturally selected. In other words, I do not see
why you should accept natural selection as regards
‘vigour’ of seedlings, and nowhere else.

I quite accept the validity of your criticism of my
physiological selection in your book, supposing your
‘self-adaptation’ true to the extent you suppose.
But otherwise what you say tells in favour of physio-
logical selection, at least, excepting the statement as
to new allied species originating as a rule on distant
areas from parent types. This, however, is certainly
an erroneous statement, though I should like to
know how you came to make it.

I much wish I could write more or meet you.
For, notwithstanding apparent bluntness (for brevity’s
sake), I see you are one of the few evolutionists who
think for yourself.

With many thanks, yours very truly,
G. J. Romanszs.

366 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES a

I am not against your criticism of natural
selection, for I have always thought there must
be some other additional principle of adaptation at
work.

Grand Hotel, Costebelle, Hyéres (Var); March 12.

Dear Mr. Henslow,—My husband has much —
enjoyed your long and clear letter which I have
just read to him. He is too ill to reply himself,
but he will dictate a few notes to me to send to
you.

Yours very truly,
ETHEL Romanss.

(a) I ery ‘Peccavi’ as regards natural selection
co-operating with self-adaptation. Since you show
that, even if it does, you are not concerned with
this fact—z.e. of the development of the adaptation,
but only with its origin.

(ps) All the same, however, we must remember
that where high elaboration of mechanism is con-
cerned, the question as to the causes of its develop-
ment become of more importance than those of zts
origin; eg. even if self-adaptation be conceived
capable of making a first step towards producing
the exquisite mechanism of a bivalve shell, by
discriminate variation, how is tt conceivable that it
should go on through the odd millions of successive
steps of Improvement needed to produce the perfect
mechanism in which the great wonder of adaptation
really occurs ?

I can conceive of no natural process to accomplish

1394 THE FACTORS OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION 367

this development even in one such case of mechanism
other than natural selection. Let alone the ‘endless
variety ’ of elaborate mechanism elsewhere.

(c) Of course, if you could prove that indiscrimi-
nate variations have not occurred in wild plants, but
only under cultivation, you would destroy Darwinism
—in toto. But is the proposition credible a priori ;
or sustainable a posteriori, &c. ?

I suppose you have read Wallace on the subject
as regards wild animals, and if you were to make
similar measurements with regard to wild plants, you
would obtain analogous results.

I remember as a boy having a game of who could
find most specimens of four-leaved clover in a given
time, or even two leaves of clover which would be
exactly alike in all respects. But I have already
discussed the matter of definite and indefinite
variability in ‘ Darwin and after Darwin.’

(p) I will let the question of Use-Inheritance in
relation to seemingly Passive Organs go by default
against me, as it is rather a side issue and would
need much writing to discuss. The same applies to
your remarks on Teleology. As regards both points
I agree with your observations.

(u) Touching varieties as found in different areas
from parent types, I suppose you heard how carefully
Nageli has gone into the subject, with the result
that, after making allowances for defects of isolation,
change of environment, &c., only about five per cent.
of species of plants seem to have originated on distant
areas, While Wallace has shown that some such pro-
portion applies to animals.

368 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1894

(r) As regards plants having been brought under
cultivation, and yielding variations that prove
hereditary, I knew there were innumerable cases
where artificial selection had been brought into play.
But of course they are all out of court until the
question on which you are engaged has been de-
cided in your favour, 7.e. until you have succeeded
in disproving natural selection as analogous or
parallel to artificial. It was for this reason I men-
tioned the case of parsnips, where the hereditary
variations seem to have taken place in the first
generation after transplanting, and therefore without
leaving time for selection of any kind to have come
into play.

Hotel Costebelle, Hyéres : March 29.

Dear Mr. Henslow,—I am still terribly ill and
cannot write much. We must have a talk. Could
you come to Oxford any day you like and be our
guest ? I think we might derive mutual benefit. I
shall be there from the middle of April till I do not
know when. Why not come on May 2, to hear
Weismann give his lecture in the afternoon ?

I much wish you would save seed of any fixed
local varieties of plants you may find to be in seed,
while you are in Malta (or bulbs), in order to see
whether plants grown from them in England will or
will not prove fully fertile. This is in relation to my
own theory of physiological selection, according to
which isolation produces segregation of type; in the
same way as it does that of a language—viz. by
prevention of intercourse with the parent type and
consequently with an independent history of varia-

1894 ON PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 369

tion. Where the isolation is due to physical barriers
(as at Malta) there is no need for any sexual differen-
tiation to originate a species. But on common areas,
sexual differentiation is the only means of securing
the isolation. Therefore (I say) we can see why
Jordan’s French varieties all prove sterile with their
parent forms, and I should expect your Malta varie-
ties to prove fertile with thewrs elsewhere.
G. J. BR.

: Costebelle : April 15, 1894.

Dear Mr. Henslow,—Yes, please write when you
set back, suggesting any time you may find con-
venient for spending a day or two with us at
94 St. Aldate’s, Oxford (immediately opposite Christ
Church). I cannot talk long at a time, but I think
the meeting will be of use to both.

Of course ‘ Isolation produces segregation of type,’
is only a short-hand expression, meaning—i7ndis-
criminate variation being supposed—isolation supplies
a necessary condition to segregation of type by up-
setting the previous stability that was due to free
inter-crossing.

I quite agree that Darwin very greatly over-
estimated the benefit of inter-crossing, as I am
showing in my forthcoming book on ‘ Physiological
Selection.’ But this is quite a different thing from
his having made too much of inter-crossing as a con-
dition to stability of type; I do not think that this
can be made too much of. Indeed, how is it con-
ceivable that there ever can be divergence of type |
without isolation of some kind having first occurred

BB

370 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1894

at the origin, and throughout the growth of every
branch? Moreover, I agree with you about self-
fertilisation, but see in it a form of physiological
selection; it is one kind of sexual isolation, or
prevention of inter-crossing with neigkbouring in-
dividuals. So that the more perfectly it obtains in
any given type, the better chance there is for that
type to become a new species by independent varia-
bility—and this whether or not the independent
variability 1s likewise indiscriminate (or in your
terminology ‘indefinite ’).

In my last letter I referred to the works of Jordan
and Nageli for any number of ‘facts in Nature of
varieties arising among the type-forms.’ I will show
you the passages when we meet. But even in cases
of ‘local varieties,’ where a variety has a habitat
of its own surrounded by the type-form, I should
expect experiment would often (though by no means
always) show some degree of cross-infertility between
the two, pointing to prepotency (i.e. early stages of
physiological selection) being the origin of the diver-
gence.

Before we meet I wish you would try to think of
any plants which can be propagated by cuttings (or
otherwise asexually) which are known to be modifi-
able by changed conditions of life in the first genera-
tion. J understand you that in some cases the seed
of such a plant will not revert—when sown in its
natural environment, though, of course, the rule is
that it does. Well, in either case, I should much
hike to try whether a cutting &c. from the trans-
planted (and therefore modified) tubers &c. would

1894 EXPERIMENTS ON HEREDITY 371

revert to its ancestral character. When retrans-
planted to its natural environment, much would
follow from result of such an experiment as regards
Weismannism.
Yours very and always truly,
G. J. Romanss.

P.S.—Of course in saying ‘on common areas,
sexual differentiation is the only means of securing
the isolation,’ I did not include self-fertilising plants
—any more, e.g. than insect-fertilising where changes
in the instincts of insects may cause sexual isola-
tion.

I leave for Oxford to-morrow.

These months were made very happy to him by
the fact that three friends, Mrs. and Miss Church
and the Rey. R. C. Moberly,'! were staying in the
same hotel. He often alludes in his letters to the
intense pleasure these friends gave him, and speaks of
how much he owed to their tenderness and sympathy,
and to their perception when to come and when to
stay away.

Many books were heard and read by him. Mr.
Gore’s Bampton Lectures were read aloud to him,
and he liked them even better than when he heard
them preached. Several other theological books were
read, and of all these the one which bears marks of
most careful study is Pascal’s ‘ Pensées.’ He used
Mr. C. Kegan Paul’s translation. The copy he had
at Costebelle, which used to lie by his bedside, is
marked and annotated. It is the last book he

' Regius Professor of Pastoral Theology at Oxford.
BB2

372 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1894

read to himself in his own careful and student-
like fashion. He also wrote some notes of advice
to his boys.

At this time he began to make notes for a work
which he intended to be a supplement or an answer
to the ‘Candid Examination of Theism.’ As he went
on, his notes grew—so it seemed to one who read
them—increasingly nearer Faith, but of them the
world can now judge.

He said one day, while scribbling down notes, ‘If
anything happens to me before I can work them up
into a book, give them to Gore. He will understand.’

Nothing can be more erroneous than to suppose

that the change in point of view was sudden, or due
to any fear of death, or that it caused mental suffer-
ing to the author of ‘Thoughts on Religion,’ or that
he was influenced by anyone, priest or layman.
' There will always be unconscious influence, andit
probably was not altogether in vain that two or three
of Mr. Romanes’ greatest and most intimate friends
were Christian as well as intellectual men. But of
influence and argument and persuasion, as most
people imagine them, there was nothing. Discus-
sions many, during the past years, but to these he
owed little.

A dear friend once wrote of him: ‘I think of him
as one of the cross-bearers of the world, and perhaps
among those who are chosen to bear the heaviest... .
one of those through whose suffering the real progress
of humanity is worked out. And perhaps there is
no greater, stranger, suffering than the suffering of
doubt. No cross is harder to bear than that which
he is bearing, nor, I think, is he bearing it blindly or
in the dark. I venture to think that he has really
much more of true faith than he at all suspects, and

1894 LIFE AT COSTEBELLE 373 |

that he and some others with him who think they
are more and more losing hold on God because the
burden and the bulk of doubt» is growing more and
more, may really be, underground, as it were, main-
taining and strengthening their hold by their loving
stubbornness in graces which are indeed their acts of
faith, and by the secret work of the Holy Spirit in
their hearts, even through the darkness and the
SOITOW.’

This was written many years before, and is quoted
now because it shows the kind of impression George
Romanes made on those few who really knew him, to
whom he showed his inmost self.

It is written that those who seek find, and to
no one do these words more fitly apply.

During these months Mr. Romanes read many
books of a religious nature; particularly and pre-
eminently he liked to have Dean Church read aloud,
and he also hiked Mr. Holland’s ‘City of God’ and
Mr. Ilingworth’s sermons, particularly one on ‘ In-
nocence,’ which he asked for more than once. He
also read much poetry, Miss Rossetti and Archbishop
Trench being especial favourites at this time.

To himself he read or had read to him the Bible
and Thomas 4 Kempis, and he liked Dr. Bright’s
Ancient Collects, and in part Bishop Andrewes’
Devotions. He never would read or have anything’
read to him which did not ring true to him and which
he could not appreciate; for instance, the Pleadings
of Our Lord’s Physical Sufferings in Andrewes’ Devo-
tions for Friday were very distasteful to him.

He often went to the English Church for short
services, and on Haster Monday Dr. Moberly gave
him Holy Communion, for which he had asked and
for which he wished.

374 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1894

In the week before Easter he felt very ill, and
said, ‘I wish Moberly (who had gone away for a few
days) were here, and we could have that Celebration ;
I don’t think I shall live till Easter.’ But this
passed away, and on Easter Day he was peculiarly
bright, and in the evening said, ‘I have written this
poem to-day.’

It is impossible to resist the wish to insert it
here :

HEBREWS xi. 10 (or ii. 10).

‘Amen, now lettest Thou Thy servant, Lord,

Depart in peace, according to Thy Word:

Although mine eyes may not have fully seen

Thy great salvation, surely there have been

Enough of sorrow and enough of sight

To show the way from darkness into light ;
And Thou hast brought me, through a wilderness of pain,
To love the sorest paths if soonest they attain.

‘Enough of sorrow for the heart to ery—
“ Not for myself, nor for my kind, am I[:”
Enough of sight for Reason to disclose,
ss The: more I learn the less my knowledge grows.”
Ah! not as citizens of this our sphere,
But aliens militant we sojourn here,
Invested by the hosts of Evil and of Wrong,
Till Thou shalt come again with all Thine angel throng.

‘As Thou hast found me ready to Thy call,

Which stationed me to watch the outer wall,

And, quitting joys and hopes that once were mine,

To pace with patient steps this narrow line,

Oh! may it be that, coming soon or late,

hou still shalt find Thy soldier at the gate,
Who then may follow Thee till sight needs not to prove,
And faith will be dissolved in knowledge of Thy love.’

From the manuscript it is difficult to determine
what was the motto of the poem, Hebrews xi. or

1894 _ DAYS AT COSTEBELLE> 375

Hebrews i1.; the latter is more probable, at least so it
seems to the present writer.

On the 28th Mr. Romanes wrote a letter to the
Dean of Christ Church, which, besides some items of
personal interest, and of expressions of affection too
intimate to be given, contains the following:

Costebelle: March 28, 1894.

My dear Paget,—I have had to abandon letter
writing for several weeks past, as the least effort,
even in the way of conversation, produces exhaustion
in a painful degree. So, as usual, I had to ask my
wife to answer your kind letter yesterday. But this
morning I feel a little bit better, so I should like to
have a try. She has gone to church, and therefore,
as I could not even hear her read the letter which
she posted to you yesterday, there is likely to be
some repetition.

Oddly enough for my time of life, I have begun to
discover the truth of what you once wrote about
logical processes not being the only means of research
in regions transcendental. It is too large a matter
to deal with in a letter, but I hope to have a con-
versation with you some day, and ascertain how far
you will agree with a certain ‘new and short way
with the oo

Want ever Beery ama afoctomately
Gro. J. Romanzs.

He had all his old interest in psychical research,

376 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1294

and a friend, Mrs. Crawfurd, of Auchinames, who
shared this interest, used to beguile many weary
hours with ghost stories, and he and she used to
‘cap’ each other’s narratives.

There were pleasant people in the hotels around,
and the bright sunshine and balmy air were
ereat sources of enjoyment to him. Dr. Bidon, of
Hyéres, was unfailing in constant kindness, and it
would be ungrateful not to say how much was owed
to the kind landlord, M. Peyron, and to Madame
Peyron.

The journey to England was apparently borne
without undue fatigue, and the home-coming was
very bright, with joyous meeting with his children
and with various friends. The only difficulty was to
keep him quiet enough. It was said one day,‘ When
you go home you must not see too many people.’
‘Oh, no,’ he replied, ‘I only want to see Paget, and
Dr. Sanderson, and Gore, and Philip (Waggett), and
Mrs. Woods, and Ray Lankester, and ’ but he
stopped, laughing, the list was already so long and
would soon have been doubled. For a few days his
wife was away, and during this brief absence a very
dear friend, Miss Rose Price, the daughter of the
Master of Pembroke, died.

He writes :

To Mrs. Romanes.

How glad I am you are still mine! I have
just returned from Rose’s funeral, which was all but
too much for me. As you know, I have seen other
such things on a grander scale, but never any
approach to this one in point of beauty and pathos,
The College Chapel was completely filled with mem-
bers of the University, with wives and daughters,

1894 OXFORD 377

yet all personal friends cf hers, including all members
of the family, the poor Master separated from the
rest in his official seat. All the undergraduates of
Pembroke were present, each provided with a lovely
wreath, carried in procession to the grave. The whole
of the east end was one mass of white flowers, the
coffin with its own flowers being placed in the middle
of the aisle. The procession walked first all round
the quad, and then through Christ Church Meadows,
being met at Holywell by the choir.’

This is the last letter I shall write. All well here,
and the Interlopers? know me now. Weismann
accepts invitation to lecture, and is on his way on
purpose. I have obtained an invitation from the
Royal Society for him to the ‘ soirée.’

Four weeks more, and the writer of this letter
was also borne through Christ Church Meadow, and
laid to rest near the young girl whom he had made
his friend, and whose death he deeply mourned.

It was thought at this time that a country home
would be possibly better for him. Many drives were
taken in search of houses or of possible sites for
building, and he was often positively boyish and
merry during these expeditions.

On one of the last days of his life he drove up to
Boar’s Hill, and it is impossible to forget his delight
in the beauty of the woods in their fresh spring
dress, the ground one mass of bluebell, the hedges
white with ‘ May.’

He began to devise experiments again, and also
set to work to arrange his papers and manuscripts
in the most methodical way. As has been said, he

1 Of St. Giles’s Parish Church. “A pet name for the two babies.

378 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1894

had already arranged thatif he died before completing
‘Darwin, and after Darwin,’ Professor Lloyd Morgan
should finish it and publish it, and any other scientific
-papers, an arrangement to which Mr. Lloyd Morgan
most kindly consented. To Mr. Gore’ were be-
queathed the fragmentary notes now published under
the title ‘Thoughts on Religion.’

On May 3 came the third Romanes Lecture. It
was given by Professor Weismann, and was a worthy
successor to the two which had preceded it.

Mr. Romanes was glad to meet Professor
Weismann, and enjoyed the pleasant talk he and
his distinguished opponent had in his house after
the lecture.

On the seventh of May he went to London to
consult doctors, and for the last time he stayed with
his two dear friends, Sir James and Lady Paget.

He saw one or two people and was, as one friend
said, ‘just his dear merry old self, chaffing and being
chaffed.’

He enjoyed music as much as ever, and on the
nineteenth of May he went to a concert given by the
Ladies’ Orchestral Society.

He was often at the Museum, and he wrote fre-
quently of the experiments he was devising, all bear-
ing on Professor Weismann’s theory ; in these he was
assisted by Dr. Leonard Hill.

He wrote several times to Professor Schifer, and
on May 19, four days before his death, in the midst of
a long letter too technical to be given, he says, ‘ All I
can do now for science is to pay.’

He still took much interest in Oxford life, and one
of the last things he did was to vote against the

1 The writer of this book was one morning taking down some of the

‘Thoughts’ from his dictation. He said: ‘If I die before I can work
these notes into a book, give them to Gore, he will understand.’

1894 THE LAST DAYS 379

introduction of the English Language and Literature
School. :

Cathedral was more than ever a pleasure to him,
and he used often to slip in for bits of the service,
particularly if some particular service or anthem
was going to be given. Especially he loved a few
special anthems; Brahms’ ‘How lovely are Thy
dwellings fair’ being a great favourite.

He used to go down to the ‘ Kights’ when they
began, and on almost the very last day of his life he
was with difficulty dissuaded from writing a letter to
the ‘Times,’ strongly supporting the Christ Church
authorities, whose proceedings in some disturbances
in the College had been criticised. On Whit Sunday,
for the last time, he went to the University Sermon,
which happened to be preached by the Bishop of
Lincoln, and which greatly impressed Mr. Romanes,
brought as he was for the first time under the spell of
one who has influenced more than one generation of
Oxford men.

And as the days went on, there was a curious
feeling of preparation for some change. He made all
his arrangements and was quite calm, quite gentle,
even merry at times; now and then the weary fits
of physical lassitude or of headache would prostrate
him, but when these were past he would placidly
begin some bit of work.

On Thursday in Whit week he went to the eight
o’clock Celebration of Holy Communion in the Latin
Chapel of Christ Church, and in the course of that
day he said, ‘I have now come to see that faith is
intellectually justifiable.’ By-and-by he added, ‘It
is Christianity or nothing.’

Presently he added, ‘I as yet have not that real
inward assurance ; it is with me as that text says, “I

380 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1894

am not able to look up,” but I feel the service of this
morning is a means of grace.’

This was almost the last time he ever spoke on
religious subjects.

With Mr. Philip Waggett there had been in these
last days some talks, and the two friends, united as
they had been in earlier years by their common
interest in science, and in those problems which
all who think at all must sooner or later face,
now found themselves in closer and fuller agree-
ment than either could at one time have believed
possible.

Sunday, the twentieth of May, was his birthday and
that of his eldest son, and had always been a family
festa. He was bright and merry, went to Magdalen to
see Mrs. Warren, saw for the last time Dr. Paget, and
had a little talk about his ‘ Thoughts on Religion’
with Mr. Gore, whom he went to hear preach in one of
the Oxford churches. And on Monday he keenly en-
joyed a small luncheon party, consisting of the Master
of Balliol, Mr. Gore, and Miss Wordsworth, saying that
Poetry, Science, Theology, Philosophy were all repre-
sented, ar.d that he would have such-like little parties
every now and then, they were so refreshing and did
not tire him.

One or two special friends came in to see him on
these last days, and he had planned to go and stay at
a country house belonging to the President of Trinity,
which had been with characteristic kindness put at
his disposal.

On Wednesday, May 23, he seemed particularly
well; he wrote a letter to the Editor of the ‘Contem-
porary Review’ and did some bits of work. It was
Sir James and Lady Paget’s Golden Wedding day,
and he despatched a telegram of congratulation to

1894 THE MOUNT OF PURIFICATION 381°

them. (The very last bit of shopping he ever did was
to buy a present for that Golden Wedding, which
reached those for whom it was intended after he was
dead.)

He came into his study about twelve, and asked
that the book in wl ich he was then interested, ‘ Some
Aspects of Theism,’ ! might be read aloud; but before
the reading began he changed his mind, and said he
would lie down in his bedroom and be read to there.
On lying down he complained of feeling very ill, said
a few loving words to one who was with him, and
became unconscious. His children and the Dean
came to him, but he did not recover enough to know
them, and passed away in less than an hour:

Hx umbris et rmaginibus in veritatem.

Five days later he was laid to rest in Holywell
Cemetery, after an early Celebration in Christ Church,
the first part of the service being said in the cathe-
dral which he had loved so much, and which had
brought him so much comfort in the last weeks of
life, and in which it is hoped a memorial of him may
be placed.

His favourite hymn, ‘Lead, kindly Light,’ was
sung, and the service was said in part by the friend
who had been with him on his wedding day, given
him his first Communion after the illness began, and
who had been bound up with many joys and sorrows ;?
and in part by Mr. Philip Waggett, who had been
to him as a young brother, more and more loved,
during the seven years in which they had walked and
talked as friends, the friend known as ‘ Carissime.’
(One other special friend, Mr. Gore, was prevented by
illness from coming.)

1 By Professor Knight of St. Andrews. 2 The Dean of Christ Church.

382 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES _ 1a?

Looking back over these two years of illness, it is
impossible not to be struck by the calmness and forti-
tude with which that illness was met. ‘There were,
as has been said, moments of terrible depression and
of disappointment and of grief. It was not easy for
him to give up ambition, to leave so many projects
unfulfilled, so much work undone.

But to him this illness grew to be a mount of
purification,

Ove |’ umano spirito si purga,
E di salire al ciel diventa degno.!

More and more there grew on him a deepening
sense of the goodness of God. No one had ever suf-
fered more from the Kclipse of Faith, no one had
ever been more honest in dealing with himself and
with his difficulties.

The change that came over his mental attitude
may seem almost incredible to those who knew him
only as a scientific man; it does not seem so to the
few who knew anything of his inner life. To them
the impression given is, not of an enemy changed
into a friend, of antagonism altered into submission ;
rather is it of one who for long has been _ bear-
ing a heavy burden on his shoulders bravely and
patiently, and who at last has had it lifted from
him, and lifted so gradually that he could not tell
the exact moment when he found it gone, and
himself standing, like the Pilgrim of never to be
forgotten story, at the foot of the Cross, with Three
Shining Ones coming to greet him.

It was recovery, to some extent discovery, which
befell him, but there was no change of purpose, no
sudden intellectual or moral conversion.

1 Dante’s Purgatorio, I.

1894 HIS LOYALTY TO TRUTH 383

He had always cared more for Truth, for the
knowledge of God, than for anything else in the
world. In the years most outwardly happy he was
crying out in the darkness for light, with a soul
athirst for God, and, as was said before, he did most
truly re-echo St. Augustine’s words, ‘ ecisti nos ad
Te, et wnquietum est cor nostrum, donec reqwiescat
ine.”

It is difficult for anyone who has lived in closest
intimacy with him to speak of him in words which
will not to those who did not know him seem ex-
agegerated, nay, extravagant; to those who knew
and loved him, cold, inadequate, lifeless ; for he bore
‘the white flower of a blameless life’ from boyhood
onwards, and in heart and life he was unstained, pure,
unselfish, unworldly in the truest sense.

When the Shadow of Death lay on him, and the
dread messenger was drawing near, and he looked
back on his short life, he could reproach himself
only for what he called sins of the intellect, mental
arrogance, undue regard for intellectual supremacy.

No one better understood him than the friend'
who wrote:

When a man has lived with broad and strong
interest in life, neither discarding nor slighting any
true part of it in home, or society, or work, the
various aspects of his character and career are likely
to be many and suggestive. And so there may be
some warrant for an attempt to disengage one line of
advance in the life, one trait in the example, and to
concentrate attention upon that, while the other and
perhaps more widely recognised elements are for the

} The Dean of Christ Church.

334 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1894

moment left unnoticed. ‘There was one such line of
advance in the life of George Romanes, of which it
may be hard to speak, but wrong, perhaps, to be
wholly silent. Few men have shown more finely
the simplicity and patience in sustained endeavour
which are the conditions of attainment in the quest
of truth. It is easy to see how the training and
habits of a mind devoted to natural science may
render faith more difficult, and cross or check the
venture of the soul towards the things eternal and
unseen. But there is one quality proper to such a
mind which should have a different effect, and act.as
a safeguard against a fault that often checks or mars
the growth of faith. That quality is tenacity of un-
correlated fragments; the endurance of incomplete-
ness; the patient refusal to attenuate or discard a
fact because it will not fit into a system; the deter-
mined hope that whatsoever things are true have
further truth to teach, if only they are held fast
and fairly dealt with. The sincerely scientific mind
shows such tenacity as that under every trial of its
faith and patience, howsoever long and unpromising
and unrelieved ; for it knows itself responsible not for
attainment, but for perseverance; not for conquest,
but for loyalty. It resists even the temptation to dis-
lke the untidy scraps of observation or experience
which will match nothing and go nowhere; for it
suspects and reveres in all the possibility of new light.

And surely there is a like excellence of thought,
rare, and high, and exemplary, in regard to the things
unseen, the things that are spiritually discerned. .
Scattered up and down the world, coming one way or

1894 HIS LOYALTY TO TRUTH 385

another within the ken of all men, there are facts of
plain experience which will not really fit, unmuti-
lated, undisfigured, into any scheme or view of life
that leaves God out of sight. They are facts, it may
be, of which a full account can hardly, if at all, be
given. They are fragmentary, isolated, imponder-
able; clearer at one time than at another; largely
dependent, for anything like due recognition, upon
the individual mind, and heart, and will. Yet there
they are, flashing out at times with an intensity
which makes all else seem pale and cold; disclosing,
or ready to disclose, to any quietness of thought,
great hints of worlds unrealised and possibilities of
overwhelming glory.

And it is on loyalty, on justice to such fragments
of truth, unaccounted for and unarranged, that for
many men the trial of faith may turn. All is not
lost, and everything is possible, so long as the mind
refuses to doubt the reality of the light that has
come, perhaps, as yet only in broken rays. Of such
justice and loyalty George Romanes set a very high
example. The strength and simplicity and patience
of his character appeared in nothing else more re-
markably, more happily, than in his undiscouraged
grasp of those unseen realities which invade this world
in the name and power of the world to come. The
love of precision and completeness never dulled his care
for the things that he could neither define, nor label,
nor arrange; in their fragmentariness he treasured —
them, in their reserve he trusted them, waiting faith-
fully to see what they might haveto showhim. And
they did not fail him. This-is not the place in which

@O

386 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1894

to try to speak of the graces and the gladness which
from such loyal sincerity passed into his life, nor of
the clearer light that grew and spread before his wist-
ful, hopeful gaze. But it hardly can be wrong to
have said thus much of so noble and so timely a
pattern of allegiance to all truth discerned; and of
this great lesson i in a life which seemed even ‘here to
have the earnest of that promise—‘ He that seeketh,
findeth ’—a life which seemed to be moving steadily
towards the blessing of the pure in heart, the vision
of Almighty God.!
Ea

A letter from Mr. Gladstone cannot be omitted,
and seems to come in fittingly at this place:

1 Carlton Gardens: Sane.

Dear Mrs. Romanes,—My present circumstances
are not very favourable to direct personal communi-
cation, and my personal intercourse with Mr. Romanes
was so scanty in its quantity as hardly to warrant my
present intrusion, but I cannot help writing a few
words for the purpose of conveying my deep sympathy
on the heavy bereavement you have sustained, and
further of saying how deep an impression he left upon
my mind in the point of character not less than of
capacity. He was one of the men whom the age
specially requires for the investigation and solution
of its especial difficulties, and for the conciliation
and harmony of interests between which a factitious
rivalry has been created.

7 Reprinted from the Guardian of June 6.

1894 ; THE END 387

Your heavy private loss is then coupled in my
view with a public calamity; but while I can rejoice
in your retrospect of his labour, I also trust it may
please God in His wisdom to raise up others to fill
up his place and carry forward his work. May you
enjoy the abundance of the Divine consolations in
proportion to your great need.

Believe me, most truly yours,
W. EH. Guapstons.

Not much remains to be said. The life here
described would seem to have been cut short, but, as
was said by a friend, ‘in a short time he fulfilled a
long time,’ ! and few have won for themselves more
love in the home and beyond it. He left no enemy,
and those who loved him and to whom his loss has left
a blank and a desolation of which it is not well to speak,
can only be thankful for what he was and for what he
is. Not indeed that one would forget those words of
Dean Church quoted in the beautiful preface to his
line: : :

‘T often have a kind of waking dream: up one
road, the image of aman decked and adorned as if
for a triumph, carried up by rejoicing and exulting
friends, who praise his goodness and achievements;
and, on the other road, turned back to back to it,
there is the very man himself, in sordid and squalid
apparel, surrounded not by friends but by ministers of
justice, and going on, while his friends are exulting,
to his certain and perhaps awful judgment. That
vision rises when I hear, not just and conscientious
endeavours to make out a man’s character, but when

1 Wisdom, iv. 13.
2 Preface to Life and Letters of Dean Church, p. xxiv.

©68 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES 1894

I hear the loose things that are said—often in kind-
ness and love—of those beyond the grave.’

But there have been men and women who have
lifted the minds and the hearts of those who knew
and loved them to increasing love for goodness, to in-
creasing loftiness of ideal, and for these, whom now
no praise can hurt, no blame can wound, one can but
lft one’s heart in ever growing thankfulness for
the gifts and graces which made them what they
were, and which will grow and increase in them until
the Perfect Day.

Beatt mundo corde, quoniam tpsi Deum videbunt.

May 23, 1895.

INDEX

Acton, Lord, 307

Agassiz, 16, 31, 33

Allen, Grant, 57

Allman, Professor, 156, 157
Arnold, M., 85, 156

Batrour, Rt. Hon. A. J., 148

— Mr. Francis, 15, 154

Bishop of Oxford (Wilberforce), 83

Boys, Mrs. Vernon, letter to, 315

Bramwell, Sir F., 227

British Association, 65, 73

Browning, Robert, 148, 156

Brunton, Dr. Lauder, 15, 62, 154, 347

Brydon, Dr., 4

Burney prize, won by G. J. Romanes,
9, 85

Butcher, Professor, 155, 203, 283, 295

ated, Professor (now Master of
Balliol), 95, 380

Cats, sense of direction in, 112

Cautley, Rev. Proby, 6, 7

Children, poem to, 145

Church, Dean, 163, 164, 234, 371,
387

Churchill, Mr., 213

Clarke, Rev. R., S.J., 197

Clodd, E. M., 156

Compton, Earl and Countess, 290, 294,
295, 307

Correvon, Professor, 185, 216, 217

Crookes, Professor, 328, 329

Croonian Lectures, 16, 97

Curteis, Canon, 158

Darwin, Charles, first introduction to,
13

— first meeting with, 14

Darwin, Charles, letters from, 33, 35,
36, 40, 46, 49, 51, 57, 62, 64, 68, 74,
77, 80, 88, 99, 102, 105, 106, 110,
113, 114, 119, 122, 125, 129

— letters to, 21, 22, 30, 34, 36, 41, 44,
47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 59, 63, 65, 70, 72,
73, 75, 79, 81, 89, 98, 100, 101, 103,
104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114,
117, 121, 123, 124, 126, 130, 132

— quoted, 206, 210, 215, 225, 226,
228, 229, 230, 333, 350, 369

— death of, 135

— memorial volume, 138

— Mr. F., 8, 51, 52, 56, 58, 60, 81,
110, 135, 137, 139, 178, 180, 181,
194, 214, 329, 345

Darwin and after Darwin, 186, 298

Dawkins, Professor Boyd, 158

Delbeeuf, La Psychologie, son Présent
et son Avenir, 78

Diggle, Mr., 170

Dyer, Mr. Thiselton-, 93, 209, 216, 217,
243, 330, 333, 340, 341, 344

“Ermer, Dr., 46, 228, 312
Eliot, George, 49
Evidences of Organic Evolution, lec-
tures on, 68
Ewart, Professor Cossar, 15, 97, 104,
133, 156, 270, 311, 337

Fasre, M., 116, 118, 206

390

Flower, Sir W., 76, 328
Foster, Dr. Michael, 8, 18, 32, 39, 53

Gatton, Mr. Francis, 56, 168, 169,
243, 278, 325, 345

Germination, experiments on, 328, 353

Giard, M., 285

Gill, Mr. and Mrs., 290

Gotch (Professor), 273

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. W. E., 169, 235,
291, 292, 305, 306, 386

Gore, Rev. C., 83, 289, 295, 328, 337,
371, 380, 381

Gosse, Mr. E. W., 234, 295

Gounod, 71

Graham, Mr. H. M., M.P., 290, 295

Gray, Professor Asa, 161, 162

Green, Mr. J. R., 150

Gulick, Rev. J., 221, 222, 237, 242, 269 -

HAckeEt, 48, 51, 52, 54, 63, 68, 98

Heliotropism, experiments on, 355

Helmholtz, Professor, 350

Henslow, Rey. George, letters to and
from, 356-371

Hobhouse, Sir A., 78

— Rev. W.,.294, 319

Holland-Scott, Rev. H., 148, 150, 194,
303

Hooker, Sir Joseph, 22, 56, 76, 184

Horsley, Mr. Victor, 227, 273, 282

Huggins, Dr., 150

Hullah, Professor, 94

Huxley, Professor, 16, 57, 76, 150, 206,
275, 296, 305, 306, 307. 326, 327,
328, 342, 346

Hybridism, 104-107

_Ineuam, Mrs. W., 300
Instinct, article on, 135

Joacuim, Dr. Joseph, 72, 290-

Lamarck, 226, 229, 333
Lankester, Professor, 47, 93, 294
Latham, Dr., 9

Lawless, Hon. E., 58

Lecky, Mr., 169, 305

Le Conte, Professor, 237, 295

GEORGE JOHN ROMANES

Liddon, Rey. Dr., 148, 150, 168, 272,
273, 274, 276

Lincoln, Bishop of, 379

Linnean Society, 40, 122

Lister, C. E., 5, 270

Lockyer, Mr. Norman, 131, 148, 154

Logan, Mr. C., 96, 203

Lubbock, Sir John, 156

Lux Mundi, 261, 264, 275

McKenprick, Professor, 96

Medusa, work on, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 39, 41, 48, 49

Meldola, Professor, 93 :

Mivart, Professor St. George, 104

Moberly, Rev. Dr., 371, 373, 374

Moore, Rev. Aubrey, 261, 262, 2063,
264, 265

Morgan, Professor Lloyd C., 337

Murray, Mrs. T. M., 96

Myers, Mr. F. W., 82

Newatu, Mr., 96, 104

Pacet, Rev. H. L., 2, 237

— Miss M. M., 146, 307 ae

— Very Rev. Francis, 2, 148, 150,
155; 158; 1655 167, 232) 265.318:
336, 349, 375, 376, 380 j

— Sir James, 380

Palgrave, Professor, 234, 296

Pangenesis, letters on, 20, 21, 22, 23,
36, 48, 50, 112, 113, 205, 228, 229,
268

Panmixia, 205, 208, 216, 229, 230, 244,
268, 270

Pascal, 371

Pembroke, Master of, 377

Perrier, M., 206, 208, 227

Pfieiderer, Professor, 168

Physiological selection, 169-184, 211-
213, 214-222, 238, 246-253

Physiological Society, 53, 67, 343

Pollock, Mr. W. H., 97

— Mr. Henry, 197

— Mrs. H., letters to, 270, 309

Poulton, Professor E. B., 202, 203, 205,
208, 225, 267

Psychology, work on, 198, 201

INDEX

Reve Lecture, 160

Romanes, Rev. Dr., 1, 2

— Major R., 96

— Mr., 1, 9, 97

— Miss C. E., letters to, 67, 134, 149,
151, 169, 175, 186, 192, 194

— Miss Georgina, 71

— Mrs. G. J., letters to, 94, 159, 170,
196, 271-276, 278, 281-283, 291,
317-323, 376

— Mr. James, letters to, 12, 158, 197,
244, 311, 313, 317, 339, 348

Rosebery Lectureship, 165

Roux, Dr., 115, 130

St. AtBans, Bishop of, 163

‘Sally,’ letter on, 253

Sanderson, Professor Burdon, 14, 19,53,
685 71, 122; 135, 155, 202, 274, 337,
338, 356

Schafer, Professor, letters to, 23, 26,
30, 38, 297, 378

Sharpey, Professor, 14

Shorthouse, Mr., 150

Smith, Rev. Robert, 2

Spencer, Herbert, 49, 98, 101, 150, 225,
244, 323, 324, 330, 333, 344

Spottiswoode, Mr. William, 15, 148,
156

Strong, Mr., 276

391
Sully, Mr., 101, 294

Tart, Lawson, 22

Talbot, Dr., 337

Taylor, Canon Isaac, 312, 317

Teesdale, Mr. J. M., 103, 104, 134

Theism, a Candid Examination of, 86,
156, 160, 161, 372

Thompson, Sir W. (Lord Kelvin), 95

Thoughts on Religion, 372

Turner, George, 170, 276

Turner, Professor, 94

Tyndall, Professor, 109, 150

VivisEctTion, 62, 64, 121, 126, 127, 128,
130, 131

Waaaert, Rev. P. W., 197, 245, 246,
250, 337, 380, 381

Wallace, Mr., 57, 98, 179, 214,
216, 224, 278, 367

Wedgwood, Miss, 103, 104, 105

Weismann, Professor, 203, 204,
206, 207, 208, 215, 225, 227,
229, 230, 240, 243, 245, 267,
284, 309, 323, 324, 342, 378

Yeo, Professor Gerald, 67

PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-SIREET SQUANB
LONDON

tb

AS

4

2
’

4)

ee Tite
——s

=e

iT